The Legacy of Jacob - Moriel Ministries

Letters & Comments
Your Letters and
Comments
AMERICAN LETTERS
QUESTION:
Dear Jacob
A question if you have time to consider it. I
am faced with the question of translating Hosea
13.14 into a certain foreign language. I have read
a number of commentaries now and translations
of this verse. I am fully persuaded of the “positive
interpretation” of this verse. Kidner’s simple
IVP commentary is not answered on this point
by any of those who maintain here for this verse
a tone of condemnation rather than (following
the apostle Paul’s interpretation in 1 Cor.15.54-
55) a note of total encouragement and victory.
It isn’t about that I ask, rather the strange
expression “compassion/comfort (nacham) will
be hid from my eyes”, which has intrigued me
for a long time. It is of course translated by the
“negative” school as “My eyes will not show
any compassion!” (NETB for example). Is it at
all possible that this expression might mean ““in
this I look not even at my own comfort” - see
Hosea’s use of nachumim in 11:8 - and thus be a
direct prophetic view of Calvary I did put this
question in a letter some years back to Derek
Kidner who was gracious enough to reply and
say he thought the range of meanings in the
words could not be taken that far. But still the
question lingers in my mind.
I append some of Kidner’s perspicacious remarks
on this verse: - Kidner: “the Heb. of 14a
does NOT use the interrogative prefix, but has
the form of a plain statement”. (Hence the interpretation
above “I longed to.. I would..”) He
points out one of the strong features of Hosea
is the sudden change of tone from the sternest
of threats to the warmest of resolves “How can
I give you up, o Ephraim....!” or in 1.9-10 “call
his name “not-my-people”... Yet ... it shall be
said to them, “Sons of the living God!” We are
moving on “to the broad, sunlit uplands” of the
final chapter. The “compassions” God withholds
are not from the victims of death and Sheol, but
from “death and sheol” themselves who will be
thrown into the lake of fire”... Thus the NT completes
the thought Hosea began”.
Best wishes in Him
Phil S
REPLY:
Only in the broad sense that the cross encompasses
God’s redeeming compassion in its totality
can ‘nachumim’ in Hosea 11:8 be seen as related
to the cross of Calvary. In its context the passage
obviously has salvific implication for Israel.
Derek Kidner (with whose work I became familiar
with in bible college) is correct in citing
the absence of the interrogative prefix and he is
additionally correct in highlighting the abrupt
transitions in Hosea of God going from wrath
to compassion.
Paul’s treatment of ‘the sting of death’ in 1
Cor. 15 would be consistent with this motif in
Hosea. The absence of divine compassion expressed
in death as the judgment for sin is turned
against death itself as the final enemy that is to
be mercilessly destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26, 54-56).
In Christ,
Jacob Prasch
(Moriel)
QUESTION:
Jacob and David, glad you will be able to
join us on Stand Up For the Truth in the coming
months. May I please impose upon you to help
me with a biblical translation
We are preparing to do a show on the “Word
faith” movement. I met with a Pastor who is a
big proponent of this movement. He claims that
in Isaiah 53:5, the word “healed” means physical
healing as well as spiritual healing. Thus
he claims if we have enough faith we should be
healed of any physical problems we face.
If you would be so kind as to help me with
the correct Hebrew translation of that word I
would be deeply appreciative.
Thank you very much. Looking forward to
having you on air again when you are in the U.S.
Jacob.
ML
REPLY:
NERPA LANU - ISAIAH 53: 4-5
HEALING and THE ATONEMENT
Your question is practical but not the kind I like
to reply to from a linguistic perspective unless I
am in dialogue with someone who knows Hebrew.
I will touch on the linguistics because you
asked me to but then I will endeavor to explain
an easier way to refute that word-faith nonsense.
A linguistic argument is in this case only part
of the counter argument to word-faith preachers.
If you do not know Hebrew grammar the
elements of a “nifal” and “vav ha hepuk” would
have no meaning to you let alone to the person
you are debating so I won’t try to explain it in
any depth. In Hebrew, future tense can refer to
the past and past tense to the future where there
is “vav ha hipuk”, and present and past tenses
in the binyan “nifal” verb structure can be the
same. But lets not go there. I only mention it
in brief in specific reference to the way you
phrased your question.
The term can have both meanings in the context.
In essence verse 4 of Isaiah 53 applies to
physical illness and is past tense, while verse 5
of Isaiah 53 is about spiritual and psychological
healing and is present tense (it is again more
complex than this but I can’t effectively explain
nuances of ancient Hebrew grammar by email).
The simpler way to address this garbage (which
is doctrinally and theologically to something
called “over realized eschatology”) is as follows.
First - We interpret the Old Testament in light
of the New Testament revelation of Jesus.
Second - We interpret the Gospels in light
of Apostolic commentary - that is the epistles.
If we want to know what the Old Testament
means, we interpret it in light of the New Testament.
And if we want to know what the gospels
and direct teachings of Jesus mean, we interpret
the gospels in light of the writing of the apostles
which explain it.
Third - We always look at:
* TEXT (the original meaning in the original
languages)
* CONTEXT ( what the passage is speaking
about; not a verse in isolation; while ‘atomization’
is sometimes used in scripture it is never
used as the primary basis to establish doctrine)
*CO-TEXT (what other passages speak of and
explain the same subject being addressed; these
co-textual passages mutually illuminate each
other and are designed to be read in parallel).
Full and present “Healing in the Atonement”
advocates only look at text or at most text and
context. They cannot look at co-text or their
foolish argument collapses.
Let us consider the New Testament references
to Isaiah 53: 4-5 in light of text, context,
and co text;
1) 1 Peter chapter 2 verse 24 cites Isaiah 53
and refers to spiritual healing; this is clear. This
corresponds to verse 5 of Isaiah 53.
2) Matthew 8: 16-17 cites Isaiah 53 and
refers to physical healing. This corresponds to
verse 4 of Isaiah 53.
Both meanings of physical and spiritual healing
are in Isaiah 53 and both meanings are cited
in the New Testament.
3) Romans 4 25 cites Isaiah 53 and gives a comprehensive
meaning uniting both the physical and
spiritual aspects of the Old Testament passage
referred to separately in Matthew 8 and 1 Peter 2.
If we read Romans 4:25 in context starting in
verse 19, we see it opens with physical degeneration
(the illness that comes in this particular
case with old age when Abraham had a geriatric
testosterone deficiency before Viagra and Sarah
was post-menopausal). As “father of all who
believe” Abraham the patriarch and Sarah the
matriarch are corporate solidarity figures; that is
they are actual historical figures who are representations
of us. Yet despite the maladies of old
age and hormonal dysfunction, a Divine intervention
related to faith in God and His promise
supernaturally facilitated impregnation. Read in
context this is the literary prelude to verse 25
which relates infirmity to sin and culminates
with the resurrection.
In other words, Romans 4:19-25 teaches that
fallen man exists in what theologians term a
“hamaertosphere”; that is a sin infected environment
that includes us as infected by sin and
requiring both justification to redress the sin and
resurrection to redress the consequences of sin
which is death. The sin causes human infirmity
to begin with and both the cross of Jesus followed
by the resurrection are the cure. Thus ultimate
healing both physical and spiritual begin
with Christ’s justification of us on the cross and
complete in the resurrection. Yes - healing is in
the atonement, but it only becomes a total and
full reality with the resurrection.
Because the promised absolute physical healing
is only fully guaranteed and realized in the
resurrection/rapture and not in this present life
in a fallen world, Paul writes “the old man is
wasting away.” Otherwise we would not ever
physically die as Word-Faith guru deceiver
Kenneth Hagin or the other word-faith deceiver
Oral Roberts did themselves. Before he died,
Hagin stated on TV that because of his faith he
hadn’t had a headache in forty years. Perhaps
not, but he had four documented cardio-vascular
failures. With a string of coronaries it is no wonder
he never had a headache. He was too busy
having heart attacks.
22 Moriel Quarterly • March 2012