God's Name

Asked on Quora:

Why doesn’t the Christian “God” have a name, just “God”?

The purpose of a name is to distinguish one thing from other, similar things. We can call God “God” because no English-speaking, monotheistic person would confuse Him with somebody else. Nevertheless, God does have a chosen name (as well as many descriptive names that I won't go into).

The Christian god is the Hebrew (Jewish) god, with details about His nature known more explicitly to Christians but denied by the Jewish faith. God is first called Elohim in Genesis 1:1. Elohim means gods (plural) or lords, so it is an early hint at the model that describes God as being one God who, using His creative power over even time and space, entered His creation as three Persons. But Elohim is a descriptive noun rather than a name.

The name YHWH first appears in Genesis chapter 2. It gets some explanation in Exodus chapter 3. As God commissioned Moses to return to Egypt to lead Israel out of slavery, Moses asked whom he should say sent him if the Israelites asked?

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Whereas most names describe a person from a third-person perspective, I AM is in first person. God selected the name. This, and the meaning of the name, teaches several important lessons.

• Self-existence. No god came before Him, so no god had the authority to name Him.
• When God calls Himself I AM, He contrasts Himself against all other gods, who are not.
• The names of man-made gods usually have root words that single out a sole action or attribute. For example, Romans’ Saturn traces back to the word, satus, to sow, and Egyptians’ Horus traces back to a word that meant light. In contrast, I AM encompasses a balance of all positive attributes while implying the imaginary nature of man-made gods. 

I AM is, in Hebrew, YHWH. This is called the Tetragrammaton, which means four letters. Since ancient Hebrew had no letters representing vowels, the correct pronunciation was forgotten thousands of years ago. Some pronounce it Yahweh, but that is just a guess.

Now that you know that YHWH means I AM and Elohim means gods or lords, you can see that, back in Genesis chapter 2, where it calls God YHWH ELOHIM, the hint about God’s triune nature expands because the expression would mean I AM-GODS or I AM LORDS. (This is a name and title, not a sentence.) If we combine this information with many explicit statements that God is the only one who is, by nature, a god, then a mystery forms that only the doctrine of the Trinity solves.

The Jews came to believe that God’s name was so holy that they began refusing to even say it. That contributed to why the pronunciation was forgotten. When reading scriptures, they began substituting Adonai, which means Lord.

The translators of the Authorized Version (the actual name of the King James Bible) could have used YHWH, or they could have translated it I AM. But one cannot be pronounced, and the other causes confusion when plugged into sentences. So they continued the Hebrew practice by translating it the LORD (with all capital letters).

Therefore, in the hundreds of places you see the LORD in your Bible, it actually represents YHWH, the name that God chose for Himself. For example, I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images (Isaiah 42:8).

In the dark ages, Christians translated the Old Testament from Hebrew to Latin. Latin lacks a Y, so they changed it to a J; and Latin lacks a W, so they changed it to a V. That turned it into JHVH.

There was an old practice of using the vowels from Hebrew Adonai. So a Roman Catholic monk transformed the word into Jahovah. The first Bibles produced with a printing press published it as Jehovah, and that stuck.

Christianity is not like sorcery, wherein words have magical power in themselves (or so it is claimed). The understanding and the intent of the heart are what’s important.

Certain sects that make a big deal out of calling God Yahweh or Jehovah, or about using the Hebrew or Aramaic pronunciations of Jesus appeal to people with low biblical literacy or people so focused on micro-minutiae that they miss the big picture.  If we were Hebrew-speaking Jews reading a Hebrew Bible, sure, the pronunciation would matter.

But most of us are English-speaking gentiles, and there’s no crime in using the LORD in place of the name, YHWH, and no advantage in using a word that we do not know how to pronounce and the average person would not understand.

Hebrews 6:6 -- Not About OSAS

Does Hebrews 6:4-8 mean that a person cannot come back to God and be saved if they once were with God and then fell away from God?

The simple answer is that the passage is not about salvation. Verses 4–8 describe the first century Jewish nation, not individual Christians.

(For simplicity of language, I’m going to use the Jewish author’s term “Jews” to refer to the first-century establishment Hebrews in Judea. It’s a lot easier to type, I do not intend any insult to “Jews” of today, and I assume the reader is intelligent and flexible enough to accept that.)

Two camps within Christianity have argued for centuries over the meaning of then have fallen away. One side (called Arminians, after Jacob Arminius) say that it means Christians can fall away and lose their salvation. The other side (Calvinists, after John Calvin) claim that the Arminian interpretation would contradict other less ambiguous statements in the Bible.

The New American Standard Bible translation is the most consistently accurate word-for-word translation, so I use that here. Here is the passage:

• For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

In the Greek, the structure of verses 4–6 is:

• For it is impossible, those who (identifying phrases), to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify, etc.

The meaning is ambiguous because the identifying phases can be interpreted to mean either Christians or the Jews. The following is a literal translation of the Greek identifying phrases without the adjustments needed to make the sentence fit together in English.

• those who, having once been enlightened
• having tasted of the heavenly gift
• having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit
• having tasted the good word of God
• having tasted... the powers of the age to come
• and having fallen away

Arminians interpret having fallen away to mean that a Christian can fall away. This is based on the King James Version’s mistaken translation, if they shall fall away. If and shall fall makes the phrase conditional and future.

But that interpretation is incorrect because it derives from an incorrect translation. If does not exist in the Greek text, and the verb to fall has the same past tense (called aorist) that all the other verbs have. Having fallen is not about a potential action that might happen in the future. It is about an actual action that had already happened at the time the author was writing.

The phrase does not describe hypothetical Christian individuals in the future. It describes an action that the Jewish establishment had already performed.

If you remove the identifying phrases, the sentence reads thus:

• For it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame

If you apply these phrases to Christians, it does not make much sense. Why can’t a straying Christian be restored? How would restoring a repentant Christian crucify Christ afresh and put Him to shame? If restoring a “fallen” Christian re-crucifies Christ, then isn’t Christ re-crucified every time a sinner repents?

In contrast, it becomes quite simple if applied to the Jewish establishment. If you outline Hebews, you will notice that it's all about contrasting the Jewish temple system against the superior system of Christ's gospel and church. Before Christ’s sacrifice, the temple system’s daily sacrifices pointed forward to redemption through His sacrifice. Afterwards, continuing the sacrifices implied that Christ’s sacrifice had not happened, or if it had happened, it was insufficient. (Roman Catholicism’s mass has similar problems.) This was analogous to hanging somebody in effigy. It was an insult.

Also note that the sentence does not say, if one renews them again to repentance, they will crucify to themselves the Son of God…. The meaning is, it is impossible because they crucify…. The temple sacrifices rejected Christ’s coming and sacrifice. The leaders had already been called to repentance and had rebuffed that call.

Hebrews 6:4-6 is ambiguous enough for a careless reading to lead to several possible interpretation. However, it is far more likely that the fallen refers to the Jewish system that rejected Christ, and the evidence that it is impossible to renew the Jews to repentance was that they insulted the person and work of Christ. If you continue on to verse 8, you will see a veiled threat to the Jews that their system was about to undergo God’s judgment.

This dovetails with what we know from history, namely, that God allowed waves of Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem and Judea starting in 67 AD. This was prophesied hundreds of years before (for instance, by Joel) and later by Jesus. So Hebrews 6:6–8 fits into a much larger picture.

Let's not stop at verse 8. Verses 9–12 contrast with the preceding verses. Whereas verses 4–8 describe people who were never saved, verses 9–12 describe people who have been saved.

There are “things” that accompany salvation such as love and ministry (verses 9–10). It does not say that love and ministry produce salvation, but rather, they are found in the person who already possesses salvation. Diligence in producing evidence of salvation produces not salvation, but assurance (verse 11).

Also note a contrast between verses 9 and 12. The beginning of the paragraph treats salvation as a present condition of the Christian whereas the ending of the paragraph treats inheritance, that is, reward, as something that comes at the end of a faithful, persevering life.

God saves through faith alone, but faith plus salvation results in fruits of the Spirit such as love, good works such as ministering to the needs of the church, and perseverance through doubts, temptations, and trials. Those results of salvation produce assurance and result in rewards. Be careful when people try to turn the results or evidences of salvation into causes of salvation.

Psalm 23:2 -- Translating "Green Pastures"

In Psalm 23:2, why is "pastures of grass" translated to "green pastures" (or similar)? (Question on Quora)

As you know, a word can have multiple definitions ("denotations"), but it can also imply multiple meanings, including emotive and figurative meanings ("connotations"), depending on how it is used in its context.

The Hebrew noun deshe, translated grass, comes from the verb dasha, to sprout, shoot, grow green. Thus, deshe implies grass or vegetation that is in its growing phase, and the word is sometimes translated more generically as herbs, vegetation, or as my doctor called it, greens.

Deshe contrasts with a different word for mature grass, châtsı̂yr. Châtsı̂yr implies grass that has turned brown and is ripe for the harvesting of its seed. Where I live, the seeds of brown natural grasses have husks called foxtails that embed into a sheep’s fur (and human’s clothes) and cause irritation. (Shall we add that that this evokes tick season and the hottest time of the year?)

In this case, the noun is used as an adjective that modifies the noun pasture. Grassy pasture wouldn’t quite draw out the meaning. Tender/young/green grass-pasture comes closer but is awkward in English. Grass and pasture are also slightly redundant. Since what matters is not the composition of the vegetation, but the fact that it is nourishing and comfortable, we can simplify the wording to green pastures.

Remember: The Psalms, as poetry, are saturated with metaphor. Barnes' Notes on the Bible points out that the verse describes a place where one’s hunger is satisfied by a bounty of food and where one is made to comfortably rest from one’s journey. I would add that it also signifies springtime, a season of renewal.

The word picture evokes New Testament themes. For example, Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and ‘you will find rest for your souls’ (Matthew 11:28–29).

Most churches and sects keep their flocks in a state of insecurity and perpetual work to achieve redemption. Work — ceremonies and do’s and don’ts — is good when done out of love and gratitude, and it is needed as evidence that we have become God’s sheep. 

However, work is an unending, impossible mission when done to establish or cling to justification. The gospel teaches us to renounce striving for self-righteousness and enter into the rest that God offers. When pride and fear cease, then love and gratitude transform former work into pleasure.

Why is the Catholic faith so strict?

Why is the Catholic faith so strict?

The gentleman who asks the question clarifies that the strictness that concerns him regards types of sins. I will answer from a biblical perspective, which agrees with Catholicism about most points of morality. Where the biblical perspective differs is in the motive behind that strictness.

As a courtesy, I will quote from the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translation; and where needed, I will include explanatory words or words from current translations in parentheses.

Defining Morality

God’s primary attribute is holiness. Because He is holy, He must be just and loving.

• God could be loving without being just or holy.
• God could be just without being loving or holy.
• If God were not just and loving, He could not be holy.

You can tell a lot about how biblical a church is by how well it balances holiness, justice, and love.

Holiness takes two forms. First, it means that all of God’s attributes and actions are right. This may sound circular because God’s holiness is the standard against which we judge “right.” However, we can refine that. God’s perfection before He created the universe is the standard, and he has neither changed away from that standard nor violated it.

Second, God’s holiness involves the concept of sacredness. To illustrate, the leftover Jesus-flesh and Jesus-blood is not to be used for ordinary purposes or disposed of like trash. The priests must protect the leftovers, but God’s holiness is self-protecting. God alone hath immortality, and inhabiteth (dwells in) light inaccessible (unapproachable), whom no man hath seen, nor can see… (1 Timothy 6:16). One day, in the resurrection, the unjustified will see Him. According to Revelation (“Apocalypse”) 20:11, I saw a great white throne, and one sitting upon it (God), from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was no place found for them.

The commandments, or morality in general, is a standard applicable to life on Earth, that reflects God’s character. God revealed the standard gradually. First, there were a few simple commands in the Garden of Eden. Our ancestors disobeyed. Then there were the Ten Commandments. The Ten were summarized in two: Love God first, and love your neighbor. That was in about 1250 BC. Over 600 more commands followed in the Old Testament to help apply the Two and the Ten in daily and religious life.

But it doesn’t end there. You can probably finish this: “Man looks at the outward appearance but God….” It’s in 1 Samuel 16:7.

God judges motives, intents, and emotions, not just actions. For example, Jesus said, whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28), and whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment…. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:22).

We can state the prohibitions against sins positively.

• Sins insult God and hurt others, so abstaining from sins can be a way to love God and others.

If a church is strict in warning against the many sins that we can commit, then it is consistent with God’s own revelation of Himself. The “blame” if there be any, falls upon us for the many ways that we insult God and hurt others.

This can be a loving act on the part of the church. Warning: This is not a loving act when a church crosses into being “strict,” as in being judgmental, intolerant, or impatient. The approach must be balanced because the goal is to help people grow; it is not to turn them into slaves.

Motives for Morality

Because God is holy, souls bearing guilt cannot enter God’s presence. Even if God or the angels did not bar the way, guilty souls would flee — some in regret and fear, others in hatred. God presents two solutions so souls can live in His presence:

• Live so that no guilt ever accumulates
• Find forgiveness of guilt

World religions add:

• Earn your way out of guilt-debt

Catholicism adopts a hybrid:

• God lets us earn forgiveness from some guilt and enables us to work our way out of the remaining guilt

Going back to the Ten Commandments and the other 600+ commands: This is called The Law. Since God gave the Ten and the bulk of the 600 through Moses, it is also called the Mosaic Law. It is one united Law with many points. Break one point, and you’ve broken the whole.

Israel failed to keep the Mosaic Law. Their relationship with God was a roller-coaster ride. Eventually, God split Israel into two kingdoms. They continued their ups and downs — mostly downs — until God allowed other nations to destroyed one kingdom and then the other. After a time, God restored one of the two kingdoms, Judea, keeping it under the rule of other nations. The priests learned their lesson too well.

By the time of Jesus, Judaism had added thousands more commands, called “traditions,” to ensure that they kept the first 600+. Sadly, their efforts to earn righteousness led them, as Jesus said, to make void the word of God by your own tradition (Mark 7:13). They focused on microscopic details and left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith not done (Matthew 23:23).

The Jews had missed an important lesson of the Law. We are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman: and we have all fallen as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6)

The main purpose of the law was to show us our inability to justify ourselves by showing us an impossible standard, God’s perfection. Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20).

Jesus stressed the lesson through irony. The religious leaders had their thousands of commands, yet Jesus said, unless your justice (righteousness) abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20).

So the lesson was not to rely on self-righteousness. Rather, as Paul wrote, the law was our pedagogue (teacher) in Christ, that we might be justified by faith (Galatians 3:24).

The Jews of Jesus’s day tried to earn their way to heaven. Abstaining from sins and doing good deeds are good, but not as a way to heaven. The Apostles explicitly taught that works and faith, and wages and grace, were mutually exclusive pairs. For example:

• Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified (Galatians 2:16).
• If by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace (Romans 11:6).

Just as Judaism went off track with teaching self justification, the Church gradually went off track, mixing grace and self justification. Grace means “gift,” but the church redefined it as being like money, to be earned through ceremonies and deeds, here a little, there a little. And if you collected enough of this substance, you could buy your way out of Purgatory or Limbo sooner. This is a blasphemous insult to the Giver of grace.

The Church also came to teach that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was not enough. When He cried Tetelestai on the cross, it was a victory cry, “It is finished!” But the Church claims to continue that sacrifice in thousands of locations every day.

• We are sanctified by the oblation (offering) of the body of Jesus Christ once. And every (Jewish) priest indeed standeth daily ministering and often offering the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, From henceforth expecting until his enemies be made his footstool. (Hebrews 10:10–13)

Notice the contrasts. The Jewish sacrifice was continuous. Christ sacrificed Himself once. It had a definite ending. He does not now rise up and descend to Earth to continue His suffering thousands of times each day, but rather, sits, resting, waiting with the Father on God’s throne, making intercession for His followers. To teach that the one-time sacrifice of infinite God the Son was inadequate is blasphemous.

• For by one oblation (offering) he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (believers) (Hebrews 10:14).

Not only was the sacrifice a complete act, but the redemption of those who place their faith in it is perfect (complete). Redemption is not bit by bit, but perfect. Implying that a complete redemption cannot be claimed blasphemously insults the Giver’s resources and generosity.

Now we can apply this to the original question. The biblical Christian has many reasons to recognize strict rules of morality.

• The rules are ways to love God.
• The rules are ways to love others.
• Love seeks the benefit of others
• In the eyes of others, our holiness qualifies us convey the gospel
• By obeying the rules, we love ourselves
• We emulate our Father
• We live at peace with God
• We enjoy peace with others
• We avoid our Father’s loving chastisement
• We earn rewards in heaven

The Roman Catholic recognizes some or many of the above benefits, but the primary reason to obey strict rules of morality is to earn “grace” and redeem oneself. Reliance on morality for justification before God has a name: self righteousness.

As Hebrews 6:1 says,

• Wherefore, leaving (moving on from) the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect: not laying again the foundation of penance (repentance) from dead works and of faith towards God….

The writer framed the gospel for Jewish converts (and all of us) this way:

• Repent from the dead works of attempting to achieve self righteousness through ceremonies and deeds.
• Simply consent to the Giver who bestows the gift upon you.
• Trust the Giver to keep His promise.

Rightly Interpreting James 2:24

Someone invoked James 2:24 to rationalize that Catholicism is strict because good deeds are necessary for salvation. Here it is, out of context:

• Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?

Now, here’s the context. There are three types of justification.

• Justification by God who paid for and forgave your sins — assuming you have received the gift as a gift, without insulting the Giver
• Justification before others
• Justification before yourself (1 John has a lot to say about self examination in order to gain assurance of the sincerity of your faith).

James chapter 2 is about justification before others. Look at how the passage begins in verse 18:

• But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me (a man) thy faith without works; and I (a man) will shew thee, by works, my faith. (Emphasis added.)

James refers to Abraham’s offering of Isaac as an argument, but acknowledges, by citing Genesis 15:6, that God had already justified Abraham roughly 25 years before, on the basis of faith alone. Abraham believed God, and it was reputed (accounted) to him to justice (righteousness).

Offering Isaac justified Abraham before men. And he was called (by men) the friend of God. Being justified before men is not salvation.

We agree, good deeds are necessary. You’re useless to anybody if you don’t do good. Jesus said,

• Jesus said, So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:16).
• John the Baptist said, Bring forth therefore fruit (deeds) worthy of penance (repentance at the time of conversion) (Matthew 3:8).

Genuine faith produces good works.

• For it is God who worketh in you, both to will (desire) and to accomplish (act), according to his good will (Philippians 2:13).

But good deeds are worthless for redeeming yourself before God. This was addressed above but bears repeating.

• Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified (Galatians 2:16).
• We are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman: and we have all fallen as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6)

People who cite James 2 to rationalize a requirement works for salvation violate an important rule for interpreting the Bible:

• Never use a vague, tangential, or ambiguous passage to contradict a clear, explicit, relevant passage.

Read Romans chapters 3–6. Chapter 4, in particular, puts James’s argument into context.

Set Apart in the Bible

What does it mean to be set apart in the Bible?

The answers to this question on Quora were either so simplistic or off-the-wall, I had to add my own answer, which turned into its own word study.

To set apart simply means to separate or isolate something. In the Bible, it means to designate or separate something for a particular use.

The literal meanings of set apart and set aside are the same. However, the connotations (implied meanings) can be either the same or opposites.

• A thing is set apart for a particular use.
• A thing is set aside to keep it from the current action.
• A thing can be set aside to keep it from the current action and reserve it for a later purpose. In this usage, the meaning is the same as for set apart, although set aside implies more about the timeline.

The terms translated set apart can also be translated consecrate, make holy, prepare, sanctify, purify, dedicate, reserve for destruction, and numerous variations (for example: make holy, keep holy, declare holy, prove to be holy, regard as holy, dedicate, and foreordain). Which meaning depends on the context and the translator’s interpretation of the contextual meaning.

For a general example, the implements in the tabernacle were set apart for holy use, not to be defiled by ordinary, outside use. This was a symbol of God’s holiness and of the holiness He desires of His people. An extreme example of violating that happened during Babylon’s reign over Israel, when Babylon’s king and his guests used cups looted from Israel’s temple for drinking at a banquet (Daniel 5:3).

Set apart is a verbal phrase, a paired verb and preposition that act as a single word. In the Bible, it usually represents a single Hebrew or Greek word. There are several words translated as set apart.

Here are some examples of how the meaning varies with the context.

• Genesis 21:29, Abimelech said to Abraham, "What do these seven ewe lambs mean, which you have set by themselves?" — Although Abimelech suspects that there’s a purpose, the focus is on the physical separation of seven lambs from the flock. Compare Genesis 30:40.
  
• Deuteronomy 10:8, At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to serve Him and to bless in His name until this day. — Here, the LORD (“YHWH,” or “I AM”) assigned specific priestly duties to one of the twelve tribes of Israel.
  
• Joshua 20:7, So they set apart Kedesh in Galilee in the hill country of Naphtali and Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim, and Kiriath-arba (that is, Hebron) in the hill country of Judah. — Read this in context. The cities were designated as cities of refuge. In those days, there was no police force and court system; if somebody killed your brother, you had to execute justice yourself or convince somebody to do it for you. In questionable cases (such as accidental manslaughter), the cities of refuge protected the accused until questions of guilt could be resolved.
  
• Deuteronomy 15:19, You shall consecrate (set apart) to the LORD your God all the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock; you shall not work with the firstborn of your herd, nor shear the firstborn of your flock. (compare Numbers 3:13.) — As Creator, and source of all blessings, God commanded Israel to devote to Him the first part of any production, whether children, flocks, or produce. First-born children were to be reared to lead their families spiritually, and the first tenth (“tithe”) of profit from work was to be given to God to support religious work. Compare also 1 Corinthians 16:2.
  
• Psalm 88:5, Adrift (“set apart”) among the dead, Like the slain who lie in the grave…. — “Adrift,” used by the KJV, is more literal than “set apart” in the NIV or “forsaken” in NASB. ESV’s “set loose” conveys the connotation most accurately. Psalm 88 is a lamentation of one undergoing severe trial and despair, and he feels purposeless, set apart for treatment as though already dead.
  
• Acts 13:2–5, While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, when they (the leaders of the church at Antioch) had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away…. When they reached Salamis, they began **proclaiming the word of God…. — The leaders of the church designated and commissioned Barnabas and Saul (Paul) to do missionary work. This did not make them holy; rather it recognized their holiness and their dedication to serving God.
  
• Galatians 1:15–16, But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles… — Paul claims that God fore-ordained him to put faith in Christ and carry the gospel to the the world outside of Israel. This comes close to claiming predestination but is not that specific. In John 10:36, Jesus similarly claims that the Father commissioned Him for the role He fulfilled during His incarnation.
  
• 1 Corinthians 6:11, Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. — The Weymouth translation renders sanctified as “set apart as holy.”  

If you want to trace every usage of the term, you need to set aside a few days, list all its various translations, and search for each one using a concordance or an electronic Bible. I would expect you to find hundreds of verses.

From the few dozen occurrences I read while compiling this, I noticed a trend. When set apart implies a change in a person, it is a change that applies to every believer, not just to a select few holier-than-thou ministers. In contrast, set apart can apply to specific people when it implies being assigned a task, duty, or mission.

Catholics seem to connect set apart with the (claimed 😉) celibacy of priests and nuns. Although Paul recommended singleness in certain circumstances (Paul traveled constantly and was under constant threat of assassination or execution -- and he was eventually executed), nowhere does scripture require anyone to set themselves apart for singleness for any office in the church. In fact, Peter and most of the apostles were married, and Paul recommends marriage for all, including ministers, who feel weak regarding sexual temptation.

Words translated set apart have a wide variety of possible translations and meanings. The term is sometimes literal, sometimes figurative. It can imply a mere physical act, a declaration, or a foreordination. It is wise to look to the context for meaning and even more wise not to lock yourself into any given meaning.

Isaiah 42:8 and Glory Not Shared

Asked on Quora: What is the meaning of Isaiah 42:8?

Isaiah 42:8 can be taken at face value.

I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images. (NASB)

Unfortunately, certain churches tack onto it meanings that violate the context. Those must be addressed.

There are sects that make a big deal about God’s name. The Hebrew Roots movement makes a fuss over saying Jesus’s name in Hebrew or Aramaic, and the Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses) make a fuss over God’s name being Jehovah.

But Christianity is not a religion of sorcery that ascribes magical power to words and their pronunciation. The term Jehovah is a great example.

The word translated LORD is the Hebrew word YHWH. The letters are all consonants. The Hebrew had no vowels.

Compounding the problem of the Hebrew word lacking vowels, Jews were forbidden from pronouncing it, for it was too holy; so the original pronunciation is lost to time. The majority of scholars believe it was pronounced Yahweh. Notice that the W is pronounced as in Water, not like the V in Victor.

A few centuries before Christ, instead of saying YHWH, Jews would substitute Adonai, which means Lord. Fast forward a thousand years, let Roman Catholic monks substitute J for Y and V for H to make it compatible with Latin, and add the vowels from Adonai to make JHVH pronounceable, and then let the first printed English Bible transliterate the word into Jehovah instead of translating it, and you’ve got a new “name” for God. And that new name is what some people are making such a big deal about.

Ironically — or hypocritically — the Jehovah’s Witnesses spend a lot of effort to reject all things Catholic, yet base their whole message on this Roman Catholic twisting of a word.

Most experienced Bible readers understand that LORD (in all caps) represents YHWH. The word means self-existent one or I AM. In Genesis 3:15, the NASB translates the word instead of substituting LORD Jewish style or the twisted pronunciation Jehovah. At the burning bush, Moses had asked God whom he should say sent Him to the Israelites in Egypt.

• God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

Why a descriptive name?

• No god created God, so there was nobody to name Him.
• There is no higher power with authority to give God a name.
• There is no need to distinguish the God who IS from all those other gods who ARE NOT.

Can you see why the meaning, and not the pronunciation, is what’s important? Any movement or sect that makes a big deal about the right “name” (which isn’t even the original Hebrew word) is heading in the wrong direction.

Hebrew scriptures frequently use a form of parallelism in which an idea is restated from a different perspective. You already saw that:

• I am the LORD,
  that is My name

The rest of the verse does the same thing.

• I will not give My glory to another,
  Nor My praise to graven images.

The two statements dovetail; you cannot separate them because they state the same thing from different perspectives.

This theme runs throughout scriptures, from the Ten Commandments… 

• You shall have no other gods before Me.  You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…. (Exodus 20:3–4)

to the gospels, where Jesus claimed to be God:

• Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM." (John 8:58)

The Jews understood Jesus’s claim. Therefore, they took up stones to stone Him for blasphemy (verse 59).

• Tangent:  Roman Catholic lists of the Ten Commandments skip the prohibition against making likenesses and serving them. When you point it out, Catholics rely on the technicality that their images are not graven and that the weasel-word venerate is not the word worship. Graven images, however, generalizes to any likeness. I’d like to know how they carve out wooden and marble statues without graving them. And if praising, burning candles to, leaving offerings for, and praying to people through icons is not worshiping, nothing is.)

Certain sects have a difficult time accepting that One God can be three Persons. The Latter Day Saints (Mormons) demote Jesus to a child of the Father, born on another planet, and brother to the devil.

Oneness Pentecostals make out the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be One Person who, like a quick-change artist, changes personas and deceives us, by praying to himself, into thinking the Son is not the Father.

The Jehovah Witnesses demote Jesus to an angel who became or will become “a god.”

Argument from Science

Einstein showed that mass, energy, time, and space interrelate, and astronomy and physics show that the universe had a beginning. From this, we learn several ways that modern science confirms Bible claims that have stumped sects and heretics for millennia:

• If, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, then God must have created time and space.
• If God has creative power over space, then He can be omnipresent. He “stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in” ( Isaiah 40:22).
• If God has creative power over time, then He can know the future. Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done… (Isaiah 46:10).
• If God has creative power over time and space, then He can be omniscient. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do (Hebrews 4:13).
• If God has creative power over time and space, then He can enter His creation as three Persons.

It took nearly two thousand years for science to catch up with the Bible’s claims that:

• There has been, is, and ever will be, exactly one God.
  (Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior (Isaiah 43:10–11). This eliminates Jesus becoming “a” god or even the Savior, if the Trinity is false. Sorry, JWs and Mormons!)
• The Father is God
• The Son / Christ / Jesus is God
• The Holy Spirit is God
• The Father is not the Son
• The Son is not the Holy Spirit
• The Father is not the Holy Spirit 

To be precise, science does not teach the Trinity, but it shows that the tri-une God is possible. For learning about the Trinity, we turn not to science, but rather to God’s revelation of Himself.

Back to Isaiah 42:8: Others claim that the verse disproves the Trinity (that is, the “tri-une” nature of God), but they err. Badly. If the three Person are one God, then the sharing of glory, worship, or divinity among those Persons does not contradict the verse at all. 

Argument from Creation

Let’s back up to verse 5. (By the way, read the context. It’s a beautiful prophecy about Jesus!)

• Thus says God the LORD,
  Who created the heavens and stretched them out,
  Who spread out the earth and its offspring,
  Who gives breath to the people on it
  And spirit to those who walk in it,

Compare it to Isaiah 44:24:

• Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone…

…and then compare it to John 1:3, which says of Jesus:

• All things came into being through Him [the Word], and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being

and Colossians 1:16–17:

• By Him [the Son] all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (*) (See also Hebrews 1:2.)

So, within the immediate context of Isaiah 42:8, we have a claim that YHWH is the Creator, yet the same is claimed of Christ elsewhere. If the Trinity is a correct model, then the claims do not contradict. But if the Trinity is false and Christ was merely an archangel or a son born on another planet, then Isaiah 42:8 is false.

• Tangent: Colossians 1:15 uses the word firstborn. Those who deny Christ’s divinity ignorantly jump on that word to show that He was a born or created person. They do this despite the statement immediately following and the statement in John, which say that all created things were created by Him.
  
  They also do this in ignorance of the meaning of firstborn. The word does not mean first one born; it means preeminent one. If you trace the word throughout the Bible you will find that the word often applies to a leader even though he came later in the birth order. For example, as Israel devolved, different tribes bore the title firstborn at different times because God had reassigned leadership. Thus, the meaning indicates preeminence and does not indicate that Christ was created.

Argument from Shared Worship

Look at Isaiah 42:8 again. Glory received from man means worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving. Note the Hebrew poetic construction, using parallelism to repeat the same thought. I AM does not share His glory. And yet, Jesus never refused worship.

• After coming into the house they [the magi or “Wise Men”] saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. (Matthew 2:11).
• After Jesus walked across the lake, those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!" (Matthew 14:33).
• Upon seeing the scars of the crucifixion in the resurrected Jesus, Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)
• The Father Himself says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him [Jesus]” (Hebrews 1:6).

and the epistles predict universal worship of Jesus:

• [A]t the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:10–11). Notice that glorifying Christ glorifies the Father. Also notice that Christ shares the title of Lord with the Father.
• In John’s vision, he saw a multitude of angels and saints saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." (Revelation 5:12)

Argument from Shared Glory

You already saw evidence of Jesus sharing glory with the Father (Revelation 5:12). Jesus Himself claimed to share the Father’s glory, praying:

• Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was… Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:5, 24). 

(See also Hebrews 1:3.)  Note that Jesus’s words reinforces the argument from creation, as well.

Argument from God's Mouth

Even God calls Christ, “God.”

• But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

If the Trinity is false, then either Isaiah 42:8 is false, or Jesus, the angels, the saints in heaven, and His followers on earth were all blasphemers, and numerous passages throughout the scriptures are false. But if the scriptures are true, and Isaiah 42:8 is true then the Trinity has to be true. 

The Trinity is the only model of the relationships between God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that explains all the scripture’s claims. And since the three Persons are One God, their sharing of glory and worship is not an issue.

- - - - 

Since I posted the bulk of this on Quora, I can't copyright it. But I will ask that credit be given where credit is due.

Regeneration or Faith First?

Addressing one aspect of God's sovereignty, Hyper Calvinists claim that God regenerates a person's spirit. As an extreme application, you don't have to repent from dead works and put faith in Christ's gift of redemption to be saved; if you believe, it's because you've already been saved.

The reasoning goes that a man does not give birth to himself (John 3:3-8) and that people dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1) cannot choose to believe the gospel (1 Corinthians 2:14).

God's act of regenerating is part of the process of salvation. God must regenerate

1. before faith OR
2. simultaneously with faith OR
3. subsequent to faith

If either (1) or (2) is true, then God cannot save through faith. This contradicts Ephesians 2:8.

For by grace you have been saved through faith....

Therefore, (3) must be true. Regeneration must follow faith.

The argument that dead men cannot have faith depends on "dead" meaning "devoid of animation." If that definition were true, then the "dead" in hell could not perceive torment. "Dead" must have a different meaning.

Namely, as physical death is separation from the body, spiritual death is a separation from God that includes disability with respect to righteousness. This definition of "death" allows that God can partially heal spiritual disability and give faith to the "dead" before regeneration.

Thus, God can give faith, then save (regenerate) through faith; and Ephesians 2:8-9 is not violated. 

Silence In the Search

Atheist: I want to believe so hard. I've prayed to God to help me find faith, to guide me, just even a tiny shred of light in a dark world. So far, even trying to be open as possible, it's been resounding, deafening silence.

I have the same struggle, though I'm a believer. I want that "shred of light in a dark world," too. Here are some differences in our thinking.

The light does not come through the world. The world is corrupt. Whether you attribute that to the Second Law of Thermodynamics or to the consequences of sin, everything tends toward decay and evil. Although there are philosophical arguments that make God highly probable, the world is the wrong place to look for light.

God is not an impersonal force that we can test in a laboratory. He is personal. Like us, He generally does not hang with those those who are hostile or untrusting. When we trust our senses, we trust ourselves (which are part of the world) and the world itself -- which, apart from God's interference, has no light.

We not only look in the wrong place, but we look for the wrong reasons. Look at the counterfeits, the televangelists obsessed with self-esteem, worldly prosperity, vulgar displays of "power," and worked-up emotional experiences. They all look to worldly experience, too. But that's not where God reveals Himself.

The hindrance to faith is usually love of something that offends God. For many, that offense is a practice that they know they'd have to give up. Some rationalize that the practice is not sinful, but the really arrogant ones admit they don't care whether it's sinful. Others stumble over their pride. Some refuse to replace their idols with the biblical concept of God, while others justify themselves. Self-justification takes the form of believing one is righteous enough to stand in God's presence or that one can earn such righteousness.

Faith in God requires a context of need. We cannot realize that need until we face the ways we offend God, ways that render us unworthy to stand in the unbearable light of His holy presence. The prophet Isaiah wrote, "the LORD’S hand is not so short that it cannot save; nor is His ear so dull that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear."

Humbly facing that diagnosis sets the context for the cure. The cure is a gift. Like a big brother taking his younger sibling's punishment, God, as Christ, suffered our sentence for us. He offers that as a gift, to be received as a gift. That entails two conditions.

First, remember that part about humility? We can do nothing to earn the gift. We cannot do ceremonies or good deeds to compensate for the bad we've done. We already owe it to God to do good, and we cannot pay with what we already owe. Neither can we earn the gift without insulting the Giver's capacity, resources, and generosity. (Most "Christian" churches violate this!)

Second, since there's nothing we can contribute to earn the gift, all we can do is quiet our minds and trust. To trust ourselves, our experiences, or our feelings is to distrust the Giver. God rewards trust. Sometimes He exercises our trust with trials or silence; sometimes, He shows people supernatural evidence (that cannot be repeated or shared with others). But it starts with enduring trust.

I used to wish I were a Pentecostal. (That has a strong parallel with what the seeking atheist describes.) It would be so much easer being able to walk by sight rather than by faith. However, according to the Bible, if my faith endures, my reward will be greater than that received by those who believe because they experienced (or thought they experienced) something miraculous.

This is not blind faith that believes despite the evidence. This is informed faith that puts the evidences together and then acts on the probability.  We all have some light. We do not all receive it. Some, like the person who asked the question, are too busy collecting arguments against it to learn why those arguments are flawed. (You'd have to read the whole of his conversation to know that he falls in that category.)

Your challenge, then, is not to convince God to prove Himself to you, but to decide whether you are going to admit your need and then trust the cure for everlasting benefits, no matter what it costs you in this world.

- - - -

Since I originally posted this on Reddit, I can't copyright it; and I'd welcome anyone to use it for personal or non-profit used, anyway; but I hope that if you use it, you will give credit where credit is due.

Another Child of God like Jesus

Asked on Quora: Would God ever have another child and let him come to Earth like Jesus?

Summary Answer

No. It's a silly question to any Christian, but the reasons behind the answer are an instructive exercise.

Background

The Bible makes three claims about the nature of God.

• Exactly one God has existed, exists, and will ever exist.
• Modern physics shows that mass, energy, space, and even time are intimately intertwined. If God created the heavens and Earth, then God created time and space. Having creative power over time and space, God is able to exist in and experience time and space as three identical Persons.
• The three Persons voluntarily adopt separate and complementary roles, self-identifying as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the roles.

Many people, instead of following a model that reconciles the three claims, reject one or more of the claims. They can argue that the following explanation is incorrect, but they cannot argue that it is a spurious or held by a minority.

God existed outside of time (which I will call “eternity”) and space as a Unity and exists within His creation as a Trinity of Persons (not a trinity of gods).

Accepted doctrine stops there. Many believe God exists only within time, but science says that time had a beginning. That leaves unanswered the question of how the three Persons could have the same essence and be one God.

I counter that the choice is not either eternal or temporal. I believe God exists both outside time as a Unity of substance and a Trinity of personhood and inside time as a Trinity. For me, accepting that God’s creative power enables Him to be both One God yet three Persons fits all the evidence in the Bible. And it is consistent with science. It also explains how God can be omnipresent and omniscient (including knowing the future).

How the Son became the Son is unclear. There are a passages that say Jesus and the Holy Spirit “proceed from” the Father. However, this could be interpreted either as a duplication of essence or as a sending forth, like a soldier who is sent on a task by an officer.

The sending meaning is far more likely. First, we know that the Father has assigned duties to Son and the Spirit. Second, sending implies sequence, and sequence must occur within time. Since the Son and the Spirit took part in creating time, the Father could not have duplicated Himself within time. “Proceed from” must mean that the Son and the Spirit were sent.

Detailed Answer

Having a child and letting him/her/it come to Earth reflects an image of God like that of humans creating children within time. Human children and parents are separate entities. In contrast, if God is a Unity outside of time, and God created time, then the Son did not come into being during time’s existence. That is, God could not “have” a child like the Son because the Son has always been.

Suppose God “had another child.” Since the new child comes into being within time, he/she/it cannot be eternal like the Son is. The child would also have limited experience, knowledge, and power. Moreover, the term “child” implies a need to mature, which the Son did not need to do. The Jesus body had to mature, but the divine Person, God the Son, did not. Since the new child would have an inferior nature, he/she/it might be similar to a great angel but could not be God. Since “another” implies of the same kind, the new child would not be “another.”

Here’s another reason why God could not “have another child.” God calls the second Person the Son primarily because that label fits the role. Consistent with that label, John 3:16 calls Jesus only-begotten. Many translations dilute the term. “One and only” is only half wrong because it conveys the metaphorical meaning of only-begotten. However, it fails to convey the literal meaning.

Here, a bit of language definition helps. Beget and conceive are counterpart words. Whereas a female conceives and births a child, a male begets a child. The accounts of the witnesses say that God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, turned one of Mary’s eggs into an embryo. While the Son already existed, He clothed himself with that body and subjected Himself to all the burdens and infirmities that we experience.

Only-begotten, then implies three things.

• God begot the Jesus body through creative power.
• The Son has the same nature that the Father has (that is, He is God).
• Jesus, Son of God, is one-of-a-kind.

If God “had” another “child,” then Jesus would not be the only-begotten. By calling Jesus “only-begotten” in the scriptures, God would be a liar. Since God is Truth, lying would make Him not God. God cannot be both Truth and liar or both God and not God.

Let’s forget God’s honesty for a moment. God could beget another body, but the same Son would have to inhabit it. However, upon His resurrection, God re-vivified and transformed Jesus’ body into a transcendent body. Jesus still has that transcendent body in heaven and would have to discard it in order to inhabit the newly begotten body. If the Son took on a new body, we couldn’t recognize Him either in heaven when we die or on earth when He returns. 

Even worse, if the Son discarded His Jesus body to inhabit the new one, the Jesus body would die again. That contradicts explicit statements that the transcendent body is immortal.

So the terms have (meaning, the verbs create, beget, or birth), child, and another all reflect ideas that conflict with what we can learn about God from the Bible. For multiple logical reasons, God could not “have another child” or “let him come to Earth.”

Since this answer was posted on Quora, a copyright would have no force. However, I can ask that if you use it, please give credit where credit is due.

Difference between God Repenting and Man Repenting

Repent literally means "to change one's mind." 

God's repentance (Genesis 6:6) did not result in change because what He was doing was already good and right. Our repentance should motivate change because what we do is wrong.

Many modern translations use the words "regret" or "sorrow" in Genesis 6:6. God repented in that He felt the sorrow that He knew would come; but He did not change His master plan.

The word applied to us means to change one's mind. We repent in that we recognize that our sins are evil and that they condemn us. Abandoning our self-righteousness, we surrender to God's mercy and grace; and then rather than us changing ourselves, He changes us.

In the context of God repenting in the times of Noah, it means He sorrowed about having created man, even though He knew ahead of time what would happen. It's like the difference between knowing in theory that something's going to hurt and then knowing the pain by experience. 

There's a similar concept where it says Jesus learned obedience. That is, He knew the concept and was perfectly obedient; yet experiencing it brought a new dimension to it. 

Repentance in Genesis 6:6 does not mean that God changed His perfect plan. Whereas God repented about what's right and did not change His plan or actions, we repent from what's wrong, and as God enables us, our repentance motivates changed actions, "fruits worthy of repentance."

We repentant concerning:

• rationalizing our sins
• denying that our sins are sinful
• ignoring the consequences of our sins ("God will just forgive me.")
• ignoring responsibilities ("Am I my brother's keeper?")
• false gods
• false approaches to God (e.g., Catholic mixture of faith and works)

There's a spreading heresy to watch out for. Many are overreacting to the sloppy agape of New Evangelicalism. New Evangelicalism preaches redemption without the need for redemption. It promotes Jesus as friend and provider without explaining sin and God's provision for forgiveness.

The new message is an old one. It claims that repentance means you have to overcome your sins before putting faith in Christ. This is a heresy because it mixes works and faith. Repentance from self-righteousness means surrendering to your inability. The man accepted by Christ says, "I cannot overcome my sins; I deserve damnation. I give up! God, help me!"

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal use, but please give credit where credit is due.

Isaiah 41:14

What is the meaning of Isaiah 41:14?

• “Fear not, you worm Jacob, You men of Israel! I will help you,” says the LORD And your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. (New King James Version)

Historical context

In the seventh century before Christ (the 600’s), Babylon had conquered Israel’s northern kingdom (which was called Israel). Babylon’s king had killed or carried away the prominent people into captivity and left the common people to tend the land and pay taxes to Babylon.

Isaiah 41 addresses the captives in Babylon, giving them hope of a return and self-rule. Moreover, it gave them hope for a just and holy society that honored God.

The prophet Isaiah lived in the eighth century, so the book of Isaiah gives the impression of predicting the captivity and the promised return. Analysis of language and other factors, however, leads to belief that Isaiah merges three books into one. Chapter 41 is in the second book, which was allegedly written by a priest or prophet who lived during the Babylonian captivity.

Regardless of whether God revealed the second section predictively through the prophet Isaiah or contemporaneously through a priest living in Babylon, chapter 41 is part of a message to those living in captivity.

Before Babylon’s attack, Israel had suffered due to apostate leaders and a decaying society. Instead of driving out the people of the land, Israel had allowed them to stay, intermarried with them, and first tolerated, then embraced their religions. Political correctness was their downfall as they embraced cultures and religions that respected violence, sexual perversions, and even child sacrifice. The corruption saturated Israel from the masses to the kings and priests.

Finally, God had enough with this nation that had failed to represent Him. He removed His protection and allowed Egypt from the south and Babylon from the north to destroy the nation. Earlier, Israel had split into a northern kingdom, “Israel,” and a southern kingdom, “Judea.” Judea followed Israel into corruption and, just a few generations later, was also conquered by Babylon.

Chapter 41 addresses the time during exile in Babylon. It predicts a restoration of God’s favor and a return to the land of Israel led by the people of Judea.

Interpreting

The rule, “Never read a Bible verse,” demands reading passages in their context. We could go back a couple of chapters, but I’ll start with verse 9.

Hebrew poetry employs a lot of repetition, parallelism, and symbolism. Jacob was the ancestor whom God renamed Israel, so “worm Jacob” symbolizes the collective, “men of Israel.”

When someone is called a worm or calls himself a worm, it describes being pathetically weak, worthless, and vulnerable. David expressed such in Psalm 22:6: “But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people.” That is how the people of Israel felt in captivity. And when we catch a vision of how great and holy God is, we see ourselves the same way. There is no room in God’s economy for pride of ancestry, of membership in organizations, or of accomplishment. If we become or do something good, it is to God’s credit, not ours.

God reminds Israel, “You are My servant. I have chosen you and not rejected you.” Some among Jews believe they are “God’s chosen” for salvation, but actually, they were God’s chosen to represent Him. (That changed, at least temporarily, after they rejected Jesus, but that’s another topic.) Imputed righteousness has always come as it came to Abraham, through faith, and not through inheritance of righteousness.

“Do not fear, for I am with you;” verse 10 reassures. “Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, Surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.” God promises His strength and protection. Note that this happens in connection with His holiness, not with theirs.

Furthermore, in verses 11–12, God promises victory over the people and nations that opposed Israel. “Behold, all those who are angered at you will be shamed and dishonored…. Those who war with you will be as nothing and non-existent..” Retribution was promised not only against the distant empires of Egypt and Babylon, but also against Israel’s immediate neighbors, and even enemies within.

The first part of verse 14 continues the idea from verse 13.

“For I am the LORD your God, who upholds your right hand,
Who says to you, ‘Do not fear, I will help you.’
Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel;”

The end of verse 14 may be a bit trickier, depending on which translation you use.
Literal translation

• “… I will help you says Yahweh and your Redeemer the Holy One of Israel.”

New International Version

• “…I will help you. I am the LORD, your Redeemer. I am the Holy One of Israel.”

New King James Version

• “…I will help you,” says the LORD And your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.

New American Standard Version

• “…I will help you," declares the LORD, "and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.

Notice how the NIV breaks the flow by turning one sentence into three. The NKJV and NASV translations are equally acceptable. The NKJV is more literal, but the NASV insertion of the verb “is” agrees with many instances where even the KJV inserts the verb because the Hebrew text omits that verb.

In all cases, the Lord assigns to Himself the titles of Redeemer and the Holy One of Israel. This is consistent with Isaiah 43:3 For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior…, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 48:17, Isaiah 49:26, and Isaiah 60:16, among many others.

Note another rule: Define terms by comparison with similar expressions used in the same context or by the same author.

Verse 15 makes the cause of Israel’s enemies’ disappearance more explicit: “Behold, I have made you a new, sharp threshing sledge with double edges; You will thresh the mountains and pulverize them, And will make the hills like chaff.” God declares in figurative language a promise to give victory to Israel, but Israel must go out and claim it in battle.

Conclusion

The plain sense of the verse is a promise by God to give victory to the defeated, miserable captives in Babylon, and God describes Himself as Redeemer and Holy One of Israel. Those titles also describe the promised Messiah, but that is not the meaning in this verse.

Unitarians such as the Jewish, Jehovah Witnesses, and “modernist” Christians, and polytheists such as Latter Day Saints (Mormons) have a problem. Those who recognize that the Tri-une model (the Trinity) best fits all the evidence in the scriptures can take the shared title in stride.


I posted this answer on Quora, so I cannot copyright it. However, I'd appreciate credit where credit is due. -- Richard Wheeler

God Judges Whose Sins?

Bible contradictions usually depend on a misunderstanding of one or the other side of the seeming paradox. A Quoran asked,

Why do we continue to blame Adam and Eve for us being sinners and remaining in our sinful ways when God judges each of us personally? Why are we able to blame Adam and Eve for our sins? Why do we blame others [Adam and Eve] for our own sins?

If you visit the question on Quora, please read the answer by Brian S. Holmes for a thorough and accurate answer. Also read the final paragraph in Barbara LeMaster’s answer for a great illustration. (Skip the first part, though.) Here, I answer the question in my own words to make sure the point gets across.

Prologue

Since Adam was the head of his family, let’s simplify “Adam and Eve” to just Adam. As the older, more experienced spouse, and as the one God had spoken to, Adam had a responsibility to fully inform Eve and guard her against error. And although Eve was deceived into sinning, Adam knew what he was doing. So his share of the responsibility was far greater.

Answer

The question assumes that God judges us for what Adam did. He does not. What we do judges us now, and He will one day pass sentence. Notice the distinction between creating guilt and passing sentence.

God’s holiness and glory are unbearable. God, “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16). When that glory is revealed, we cannot bear it. “Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them” (Revelation 20:11).

It is our guilt, not our heritage, that disqualifies us from defiling God’s presence. Unless redemption intervenes, we will stand before Him for sentencing in accordance with our own thoughts and actions. “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne…; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds” (Revelation 20:12–13).

“Deeds” includes both deeds of thought and deeds of action. You should be able to complete this quote from 1 Samuel 16:7: “Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord….” That is why Jesus said that if we so much as hate someone without just cause, we are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:22) and if we look at a non-spouse with sexual desire, we are guilty of adultery (Matthew 5:28); and coveting is listed in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:17).

Adam needed redemption from the sin that gave us our tendencies, but we need redemption from how we act out out those tendencies. For our sins, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Postscript

The text above is very bad news. It gets much, much worse if you look it up and read it in context. It would be incomplete without the good news that complements it. The bad news gives context to, value to, motivation for the good news.

In the midst of the quotes from Revelation above is a reference to the Book of Life. Those whose names are written in the Book of Life will not be subject to that awful judgment. The label “dead” does not apply to them, and their judgment, a separate occasion, results in reward instead of in sentencing.

(The judgment in Revelation 20 is called the Great White Throne Judgment. The judgment of the redeemed is called the Bema Seat Judgment. It is comparable to the judgment of winners at the Olympics in which they receive medals as rewards.)

Redemption is held out as a gift, ready to be applied to all who receive it. The conditions include changing our minds about our sins and trusting Christ for his substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.

Our worst sins include preferring a false image or mental model of God (or worse, rejecting Him outright), rationalizing our sins, trusting in self-righteousness, and prioritizing earthly desires above relationship with God. Violating do’s and don’ts like the Ten Commandments merely enacts those sins. A responsible sinner admits, “I am guilty, my guilt condemns me, and I cannot justify myself in any way.” That is the repentance side of the coin.

The reverse side of the coin is faith toward God. Not just any God that we imagine, but God as He has revealed Himself to be: namely, God as Creator (whether via Creationism or Theistic Evolution is irrelevant); and as Creator of time and space, existing in His creation as three equal Persons who voluntarily fulfill distinct roles. “Christians” with limited imaginations create idols by rejecting God’s triune nature, but the “Trinity” is the only model of God that fits all the revealed evidence.

Faith toward God excludes faith toward heritage, church membership, and self. Redemption is a gift received, not wages deserved. Gifts and wages are mutually exclusive, as are faith and works. Because of our pride, many, if not most, Christian churches try to mix faith and works. They add various do’s and don’ts such as ceremonies, deeds, and refraining from sins. Some sneak the do’s and don’ts into repentance by saying that it includes changing our behaviors. Some sneak them in by saying you need the do’s and don’ts in order to hang on to the gift. They fail to recognize that changed behaviors results from receiving the gift rather than causing or securing it. Refusing to receive the gift as a free gift insults the Giver.

Within God’s character lies a tension between His attributes. God is love, but he is also holy and just. Justice drives judgment, but Love drives redemption. Love does not mean simple forgiveness. Justice must be served. That is why God the Son took our place in judgment. Being God, He bore a sentence that would have destroyed us. And being God, he could not be held by death. The resurrection is proof, not only of His identity, but also of the new life that God offers as a gift.

The question applies to all of us: Do I, knowing my condemnation, receive the gift as a free gift from the God Who is?

Since I posted the bulk of this on Quora, I cannot copyright it. However, I hope that if you copy it, you will give credit where credit is due.