Ask a question. Dr. Eli will answer it.

Carl, if I have to give one sentence definition, I would say rule of God in hearts of men.

Shalom, Herb. Yes, if by remez you mean a scriptural hint or allusion. Jesus answers John by drawing together Isaiah’s promises: the blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame walk (Isa 35:5–6); good news reaches the poor (Isa 61:1); and the dead rise (Isa 26:19). His deeds invite John to recognize that God’s promised restoration is unfolding through him.

One historical qualification: the formal fourfold system called PaRDeS, which includes remez, developed much later. We should therefore be careful about describing Jesus as using that established system.

But your central observation is right. Jesus expects John to recognize Scripture in what the messengers report. His closing blessing gently invites John to trust him even when his ministry does not unfold as John expected.

Shalom, Arvi. These differences deserve attention, but medieval manuscript dates do not mean the Masoretic wording originated then. Qumran also preserves texts resembling it. Translation dates likewise differ from surviving manuscript dates.

In Deut 32:8, “sons of God” likely preserves the earlier reading; the Greek reads “angels of God.” Psalm 22 is less certain: the MT has כארי, “like a lion”; the Greek has “they dug,” traditionally rendered “pierced.” A fragment from Nahal Hever, rather than Qumran, appears to support כארו, but its interpretation remains disputed. This does not establish deliberate alteration by the Masoretes.

Other examples include Jeremiah’s shorter Greek edition, supported in places by Qumran Hebrew, and an additional paragraph about Nahash before 1 Sam 11 in 4QSamᵃ. Copying, translation, and differing literary editions all contributed. Each passage needs examination; neither tradition is automatically correct everywhere.

Dear Dagfinn, Unfortunately, I am not grammatically enough to answer this question. Hope you can find yourself a good person who can handle this important question.

Shalom, Deborah. You have noticed the very detail that makes this command unsettling: grabbing the tail leaves the snake’s head free. Exodus does not explicitly explain why God chose the tail. However, the sequence suggests a lesson in trust. Moses first runs from the serpent (Ex 4:3). God then tells him to take hold of what frightened him, and it becomes a staff again. Moses must act on God’s word before seeing the danger disappear. The stated purpose of the sign is to convince Israel that the LORD appeared to Moses (Ex 4:5). Taking it by the tail may also emphasize that Moses’ confidence must rest in God’s power rather than his ability to control the animal.
That is an interpretation, not an explanation supplied by the text. The God sending Moses can master what Moses fears. Also, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS MINISTRY! It is very important!

Dennis, thank you for asking. Genesis calls the serpent a creature God made, but does not explicitly identify it as Satan. Revelation identifies the “ancient serpent” with Satan (Rev 12:9). This grounds the Christian reading of Satan working through the serpent. “Antichrist” is a different designation.

In Genesis, death includes bodily death, returning to dust (Gen 3:19). Expulsion from Eden also brings estrangement and loss of access to the tree of life. Yet God still clothes and cares for them. Death should not simply be equated with exclusion from a faith community.

The Hebrew word עוֹלָם (olam) can describe ancient time, lasting duration, or forever, depending on context. Saying Hebrew cannot express eternity goes too far. Psalm 90:2 describes God as existing “from everlasting to everlasting.” Our hope rests in this enduring God, who overcomes death through Christ. I trust this helps somewhat. Feel free to ask follow-up questions. (and by the way THANK YOU so much for your support, my brother!)

Richard, the question turns on a distinction: never having experienced death does not necessarily mean being unable to understand a warning about it. Genesis presents Adam as already capable of understanding speech and receiving instructions. It does not explain how much he knew about natural processes, so we should avoid assuming complete ignorance.
A person can understand that something will destroy their life without having witnessed it. God’s warning could therefore communicate a real danger even if Adam had never seen anyone die. Eve later repeats the warning, and the serpent directly contradicts it (Gen 3:3–4). The narrative treats death as a consequence they can discuss.
We cannot reconstruct their precise understanding. But the central issue is clear: would they trust the God who gave them life when He warned them about losing it?

Thank you for these questions. In Genesis 1, “evening” (erev) and “morning” (boker) describe the transitions into darkness and daylight, marking the recurring rhythm of creation.
“Between the two evenings” (bein ha’arbayim) is a different expression, found in Exodus 12:6. Its precise timing is debated: some understand sunset to full darkness; rabbinic interpretation understands the afternoon leading toward nightfall. Accordingly, Temple practice placed the Passover sacrifice in the afternoon of Nisan 14, with the meal after nightfall, beginning Nisan 15. The expression concerns slaughtering the lamb, rather than the duration of the meal.
Genesis 1 alone does not explicitly specify when Sabbath observance begins; God’s seventh-day rest appears in Genesis 2. Jewish practice begins Sabbath before sunset on Friday. Elsewhere, Scripture supports an evening boundary, explicitly prescribing evening-to-evening observance for the Day of Atonement.

I have not studied this topic in depth. I trust local churches to do their own discovery on that.

You are right to notice that tension. Tertullian did call her a prostitute, but John’s Greek text never does. It tells us only that she had had five husbands and that the man now with her was not her husband. We should not turn that into a story the Gospel itself does not tell.

The townspeople did not come because they suddenly approved of a notorious woman. They came because her startling testimony led them to Jesus: “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did” (John 4:29). Then they believed because they heard Him themselves (vv. 39–42).

Greek Orthodox tradition honors her as Saint Photini, “the enlightened one.” That is later tradition, not a name supplied by John, but it rightly preserves the central point: she became a courageous witness to her own people.