What do you make of these plural noun forms?

I find the following Hebrew noun forms in the plural to be, well, intriguing.  What do you make of them?  I’m thinking first of the plural form of “life”  (chayyim) which is found, if I did the search correctly, nearly 170 times.  Examples such as Genesis 2:7 “breath of lives”, 2:9 “tree of lives”, 3:14 & 17 “days of your lives”, 3:22 & 24 “tree of lives”.  A second word is the plural use of “blood” (damim) which is found, if I searched correctly, nearly 75 times.  Examples such as Genesis 4:10 & 11″your brother’s bloods”, Exodus 4:25-26 “bridegroom of bloods”.  It would appear that the LXX opts for the singular in these cases instead of the plurals.

What are we to do when attempting to interpret these “for instances”?  Regarding “bloods”, Waltke and Harris (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax) argue that when blood is in its natural state in the body the singular is used, but after it has been spilled, the plural is used (p. 120).  Regarding “lives”, Gesenius’s Hebrew Grammar indicates this is “the abstract idea of the qualities of a living being” (p. 397, section # 124, paragraph d).  BDB simply identifies this as an abstract plural of emphasis (p. 313)

I’d be interested in what you might add to the discussion of this curious trait of Hebrew.

Thoughts on Isaiah 23:9

As you read Isaiah 23:9, notice from the Hebrew text, the following:

1. Yahweh purposed (ya`ats #3289) the destruction of the financial and commercial center of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, Tyre.
2. Yahweh’s purpose in destroying Tyre was 2-fold (identified by the two infinitives).
3. Yahweh’’s first purpose in destroying Tyre was to make common (chalal #2490) what was once considered magnificent (tsebiy #6643).
4. Yahweh’s second purpose in destroying Tyre was to make light (qalal #7043) what was once considered heavy (kabad #3513).

Once again we learn that the one True God will not share glory with anyone or anything. Only He is worthy of our trust.  Only He can be the refuge of our soul. For the southern kingdom of Judah to yield to the temptation to turn in hope to Tyre would be sinful. Turn to Him who is working all things according to the determination of His desirous will (Ephesians 1:11).

Did Paul Really Question the Salvation of the Corinthians?

I think we are all familiar with the 2nd Corinthians 13:5-6 text: Test yourselves, if you are in the faith. Examine yourselves. Or do you not recognize yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? unless you are failing to pass the examination. I am hoping that you will know that we are not failing to pass the examination.

At first glance it would appear that Paul doubts their salvation, until you dig a bit deeper into the text. What are the indicators that Paul was not questioning their salvation?

1. He wrote the letter to the congregation of God that is in Corinth in 1:1.
2. He calls them brothers in 1:8.
3. The question in 13:5: or do you not recognize yourselves, that Christ is in you assumes a positive response (see Barnett, NICNT, p. 608)
4. The use of peirazo and dokimazo are also helpful indicators. Trench reminds us that peirazo refers to testing that will cause its recipients to appear as what they always have been. Dokimazo refers to a test that implies anticipated approval, or at least without a contrary anticipation. (p. 294).

These would be four reasons why it appears to me that Paul regarded them as genuine believers. Then why the commands to test? To get them to think more clearly, because the verdict about themselves will likewise be their verdict about Paul’s apostleship (Barnett, NICNT, p. 607).

The Lord’s Supper in Acts 2:42?

While reading through the various commentaries on Acts, one finds a divided opinion on the expression “breaking bread” in 2:42. Some argue that it is a mere meal, while others attempt to argue from reason or tradition that is a synonym for the Lord’s Supper.

My experience with such books led me to Homer Kent’s helpful little commentary on Acts,  Jerusalem to Rome. Kent accurately notices that the Greek text in 2:42 contains two definite articles (i.e. the breaking of the bread), as opposed to the participial phrase in 2:36 with no articles (i.e. they were breaking bread). It would thus appear that Luke means something more in 2:42 than he does in 2:46. The context of 2:42 (i.e. apostolic instruction, the fellowship, and the prayers) also argues for something more than just a common meal. While it is true the expression regarding breaking bread with two articles is also found in Luke 24:35, there it clearly refers to a meal they shared with the risen Lord Jesus.

What a good reminder it is for us to look carefully at the inspired text, and to argue from grammar and not mere reason or tradition. Early on in my shepherding, too often I relied on the tradition of what I had been taught in school. Shame on me for not relying on the text alone. Examine everything carefully, cling to what is good.

Evaluating Gill’s Comments on Deuteronomy 32:29

In part I of John Gill’s book The Cause of God and Truth, he argues against the Arminian interpretation of one Dr. Whitby on various verses.  In section VI of part 1, he addresses Deuteronomy 32:29. The issue at hand is whether the Hebrew word lu is a hypothetical proposition (i.e. if…) or an interjection of wishing (i.e. O that …).

A quick survey of Bible translations indicates the the 2 basic concepts.  Gill argues for the hypothetical position, as does the ESV. The wishing or optative position is followed by the Geneva, KJV, NKJV, NAU, NET, NIV and CSB. The LXX translates it as a negative statement, “They did not think to understand.”

Gesenius’ Lexicon (p. 432) simply gives us the two options, but does not address Dt. 32:29.  His Grammar does address it (p. 497), indicating that he understood this to be an “if…then…” clause, thus agreeing with Gill.

Waltke and O’Connor classify this usage of lu as an irreal conditional (i.e. contrary to the facts or incapable of fulfillment) (pp. 636-638), thus apparently agreeing with Gill. This would agree with BDB’s entry of lu as well. They say that this is “stating a case which has not been, or is not likely to be, realized.” (p. 530)

So, it would appear that Pastor Gill was onto something, as is the ESV, eh?

Welcome to tefblog

Thanks for visiting TEF. This new blog is designed to help those who teach and preach the Bible to do so Theocentrically (i.e. in a God-centered manner) and exegetically.

Our Christian subculture is overrun with man-centered (anthropocentric) philosophy and practice. The too common mishandling of God’s Word needs to be countered. Therefore, we seek to handle accurately the Word of Truth, desiring to encourage others of like mind.

We hope to have occasional posts written by a small group of pastors, who, for the most part, shepherd relatively small congregations. These men are committed to shepherding God’s flock in a Theo-centric manner, and who are also committed to doing the hard work of exegesis in the original languages of the Bible. This site intends to give you the results of our study in the Word.

Simply click on a book of the Bible to view all of the posts pertaining to that book. As these pastors teach through the various books of the Bible in their respective congregations, we hope they will share some of those insights with the rest of us!