I was going back over Exodus 11 and 12 this morning in final preparations for a Sabbath sermon, and I noticed something I had never noticed before. It is amazing how that you can read a text for so many years and yet miss something very profound.

In Exodus 11:6-7 we have Moses talking to Pharaoh about what is going to happen in the final plague in Egypt. It is the plague where the firstborn in all of Egypt will perish, that is, unless the command to apply blood to the door of the house is obeyed (see Exodus chapter 12). In Exodus 11:6 Moses says that there is going to be a great cry of anguish throughout Egypt. This cry would be something that had not occurred before nor would occur again. It would be the cry of all the families in Egypt that awoke when their firstborn died during the middle of the night. Imagine thousands of people dying at one singular time all over an entire nation.

Moses then states this in Exodus 11:7: "But against all the Israelites, whether man or beast, not even a dog will snarl."

I read this one time, and then I went back again a read it a few more times. I was thinking to myself, "What in the world does this mean?" It even made me chuckle a bit.

The literal reading from the Hebrew is "not even a dog will move/point its tongue," and most commentators regard it as an idiom meaning something like this: when the Israelites leave they will not have to deal with the grief from their firstborn dying. This means that there will be no dogs howling as is customary for dogs to do when someone in the house is hurt or in need.

However, I think there is another meaning (or a two-fold meaning) here that becomes apparent with a bit of study into the worship of the Egyptians. The Egyptians worshiped a multiplicity of gods and in bringing the plagues on Egypt Yahweh was executing judgment on all their gods (Exodus 12:12). One of the gods Egypt worshiped was named Anubis and was the Son of a major god named Osiris. Anubis was depicted as either a dog (jackal) or at least a man with the head of a dog. He was actually called "barking Anubis" by the Egyptian people. Egypt even had a city named Anubis after the name of the god. Anubis' name actually means something like, "Lord of the Place of Embalming," or "Lord of Death." It was believed by the Egyptians that Anubis was the god that carried them to the underworld when they died.

It is quite probable that what Moses meant in Exodus 11:7 is that there would be yet another judgment on one of Egypt's gods. Just as the "powerful" sun god "Ra" was shown to be powerless when there were three days of darkness in Egypt during the ninth plague, Yahweh was now mocking Anubis through His prophet Moses by telling them that even Anubis would not be able to stop the exodus from the land of Egypt, controlled by Yahweh's ultimate power. Even Anubis, the "lord of the dead" couldn't keep Yahweh's Israel people from leaving Egypt. Very interesting to say the least.

Matthew Janzen

I saw a note on the web yesterday that stated "Jesus Loves Sinners." I agree with the statement, but I fear that most who use such a statement also abuse the words. Many people read that line and feel that it excuses them when they sin or else it allows them to continuously continue in sin so that the Messiah can love them more and more. This is not what is taught in the ministry of Yeshua. I would like to just look at one example.

In Luke 19:2 we read that there was a man named Zacchaeus who was a chief tax collector. Tax collectors then (as is often the case today) were looked down upon because of the way they abused people in stealing money from hard working citizens. They are listed in with prostitutes in the gospels as being people with whom many Judahites would not associate with. Yeshua however, comes to save sinners, whether they be thiefs by tax collection, prostitutes, adulterers, idolaters, etc.

When we continue reading through Luke 19:3-7 we find that Yeshua told this man that He was coming over to his house that day, but all the people murmured and said amongst themselves, "This Yeshua is going to go and be a guest in a man's house who is a sinner!"

What happens next is astonishing. We see that there must have been some type of conversation between Yeshua and Zacchaeus because in Luke 19:8 we read the following:

"And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, 'Behold, Lord, that half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." {ESV}

Something had pricked Zacchaeus' heart so that he felt the need to correct the wrongs / sins he had committed or was committing at the present. What was the response given to his statement by the Master?

"And Yeshua said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.'" {Luke 19:9, ESV}

After Yeshua saw the heart of Zacchaeus was truly repentant, i.e. he desired to turn away from the sins he had been committing and change towards acting justly and piously, He told him that salvation had come to his house.

The point is that yes, Yeshua does love sinners, but He loves them in this way. He desires to heal them of their sickness and disease of sin. He doesn't love them in a way that wants to keep them bound in slavery to sin. He comes to them to deliver them of sin; He comes to them preaching repentance from sin. Let us never confuse the statement, "Jesus loves sinners" thinking it somehow means we can just go on and on and on sinning without batting an eye.

Matthew Janzen

I certainly do not question the validity of the statement found in the KJV of Acts 8:37. The eunuch from Ethiopia has asked Philip what hinders him from being baptized? In all likelihood there was a response from Philip about belief/faith, repentance, confession, etc. I'm also sure much more discussion took place between the two fellows than is recorded for us by Luke in Acts 8:26-40. However, when we examine the textual evidence for Acts 8:37 we find that the oldest and best manuscripts of the Greek New Testament lack the verse. It is not found in any Greek manuscript before the 6th century A.D. Dr. Neil R. Lightfoot comments:

"Another passage of interest is found in Acts 8:37. The King James translation of this verse reads, 'And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' These words are represented as part of a conversation between Philip the Evangelist and the eunuch at the time of the eunuch's baptism. These are familiar words stressing the importance of faith in Jesus Christ. Yet the words are not found in the American Standard Version or the Revised Standard Version. These and other recent translations, on the basis of evidence, are compelled to omit theis verse from the Book of Acts. It is true that a sixth century uncial, some good minuscule manuscripts, and the Old Latin Version support the verse, but practically all the other manuscripts and versions stand opposed to it. Because no Greek manuscript earlier than the sixth century knows of this reading, beyond doubt it could not have formed a part of the original account of Acts." {Source: "How We Got the Bible" by Neil R. Lightfoot, Third Edition, 2003, pages 99-100}

I was preaching about this text last evening and asked those in attendance if it was possible that something similar to Acts 8:37 was actually said by Philip. Most responded with a shaking of the head yes, or either answering affirmatively, and I agree. It is possible, and quite likely that Philip responded to the eunuch by telling him what he needed to do before baptism (belief, repentance, confession) but we can't just insert words into the text on the possible words of Philip. 

For example, we find that the Jailor asked Paul in Acts 16:30 what he needed to do to be saved. Paul's response was to believe in Yeshua (Acts 16:31), but the text goes on to say that after this response they spoke the message of the Lord to the Jailor. What was included in the message of the Lord? Many things I'm sure, but it would not be correct for us to insert a few verses in the text relying on the possibility of Paul teaching the Jailor about the death, burial and resurrection.

There is nothing unorthodox about Acts 8:37 as found in the KJV. And, contrary to many staunch KJV ONLY advocates, the newer versions of Scripture like the ASV, RSV, or NIV are not trying to diminish from the person of Christ. There are many other verses in these newer versions of the Bible that show one must believe Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of Yahweh (see Matthew 16:13-18 and 1 John 4:15).

Matthew Janzen

I was studying Acts 8:26-40 this morning and came across something that I was already familiar with but reminded of. Here we have Philip being led of the Spirit to preach to a eunuch under the authority of the Queen of Ethiopia. Much could be said here, but I simply want to point out that Philip eventually preached Yeshua to this man. What does it mean to preach Yeshua?

I would say that since Philip began at Isaiah 53 in his preaching (see Acts 8:29-35) he would have certainly preached the death of Yeshua to the eunuch. If Philip preached the death of Messiah this would in turn mean that he would have preached the death of a sinless Messiah, a perfect lamb, as well as the resurrection from death of the Messiah.

We can also conclude from the context that Philip preached water baptism to the eunuch. We know this because after the text says that Philip preached Yeshua to him they came across a body of water and the eunuch (not Philip) made this statement, "Look, there's water! What would keep me from being baptized?" For the eunuch to ask the question necessarily implies that Philip must have preached to him that he needed to be baptized into the Messiah.

When we preach Yeshua to others does our preaching include water baptism? If not, it certainly should based upon the inspired example in Acts 8.

Matthew Janzen