Q. Do you know why BibleGateway does not have the TNIV?
The TNIV (Today’s New International Version) was officially “folded into” the updated NIV in 2011. The TNIV, published in 2005 and produced by the same translation committee as the NIV, was essentially the third edition of the NIV, after the 1978 and 1984 editions. Previously Biblica and Zondervan were publishing the TNIV alongside the 1984 NIV, but now only a single edition of the translation, the 2011 update, is being published.
Harper Collins, which owns Zondervan, also owns BibleGateway, and in keeping with this policy it does not make the TNIV available on line. For those who still want to use the TNIV online, however, it can be found at BibleStudyTools. [Update: Unfortunately the TNIV is no longer available at this site, either.]
I have to admit that the translation remains a favorite of mine for its accuracy, readability, and especially its careful work in the area of gender accuracy, and I use it often. The Books of the Bible made its debut in the TNIV in 2007 before being reissued in the latest update to the NIV. The TNIV was used for other notable projects such as The Bible Experience, an audio recording of the Scriptures by leading actors. The 2011 update to the NIV incorporates most of the changes the TNIV made to the 1984 edition.
Q. I find it very meaningful to “pray the psalms,” that is, to read through them and turn them into my own prayers. But I always balk when I come to places like the one in Psalm 139 where David says, “Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God! . . . Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord? . . . I hate them with complete hatred.” Aren’t we supposed to love our enemies? I find it hard to make this kind of thing my own prayer, and I’m tempted just to skip over parts like this as I pray through the psalms. Is that all right?
Each of the psalms is a complete composition in a specific genre or literary type, and so I would encourage all of us to read, study, and pray each of the psalms in their entirety, without leaving out or skipping over any parts we find difficult. In fact, when we approach a psalm like Psalm 139 with an appreciation for the literary pattern it is following, the part you (and many others) find so troubling becomes much more understandable. Then I think we do become able to read it and pray it with integrity.
The psalms are of three main types. Psalm 139 is a “psalm of supplication,” in which the psalmist asks God for help. As I explain in this post, psalms of supplication are built out of a series of common elements. Not every psalm has all the elements, and the ones that are used can be presented in a variety of orders, but a basic pattern can be recognized.
Psalm 139, for its part, contains just two of the typical elements of a psalm of supplication. It consists mainly of an extended “statement of trust.” But at the end, there is a “petition” or specific request for assistance. This is the passage in the psalm that you are having difficulty with.
We need to appreciate that such a petition may cite reasons why God should help the psalmist, and that these reasons may include a claim of innocence—that is, an “affidavit” that there’s no reason for God to punish the psalmist by allowing troubles to continue or adversaries to prevail, because the psalmist has not been pursuing an evil course.
One variety of this claim of innocence is an imprecation, an expressed wish that God would slay the wicked. It needs to be understood that in the context of a claim of innocence, within a petition, within a psalm of supplication, the psalmist is actually saying, “God, if I’m really among the wicked myself, then slay me!”
This is what is going on in Psalm 139: “If only you would slay the wicked” is a petition equivalent to, “See if there is any offensive way in me.” In essence, the psalmist is saying, “So far as I know, I haven’t been choosing any evil path; I’m so sure of this that if I have been, I’m asking you to slay me along with all of the other wicked. But if there’s anything I’m not recognizing, please reveal it to me.” I think all of us today could pray a prayer like this with integrity—but with great caution and humility, after serious self-reflection, because it is a very solemn thing to call down the wrath of God upon ourselves if we are being deliberately evil!
One other thing that should help is to recognize what is meant by “hatred” in this context. It has been aptly said that love is properly not a feeling, but a commitment: the commitment to act consistently in the best interests of another person. Conversely, hatred is properly not a commitment, but a feeling. It is that feeling of strong antipathy towards anything dishonoring to God that makes us want to have nothing to do with wrongdoing and not join in with wrongdoers. Such a feeling is a valuable protection against temptation. But if instead we are “out to get” somebody, that is, if we are committed to acting consistently contrary to their best interests, then this is not really “hatred” in the sense that the godly psalmists use the term. It is instead bitterness or vengefulness—something we cannot in good conscience indulge.
I hope these reflections will help you pray through all the psalms, and Psalm 139 in particular, more meaningfully and wholeheartedly.
This post draws on the discussion of psalms of supplication in Session 2 of my Psalms study guide and the discussion of Psalm 139 in Session 7.
“Praying the psalms” is a time-honored spiritual discipline. In the Middle Ages, beautiful illuminated psalters such as the one shown here (the St. Albans Psalter) were created to facilitate and encourage this discipline.
Q. In the Bible, the prophet Malachi says about marriage, “Has not the Lord made the two of you one? You belong to him in body and spirit. And why has he made you one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.” Does this mean that we should expect the offspring of couples who “belong to the LORD in body and spirit” will naturally be “godly”? Or, since the translation note says, “The meaning of the Hebrew for this section is uncertain,” is the English translation still debatable?
It would certainly be wonderful if there were a promise in Scripture that a husband and wife who both belong wholly to the Lord will have children who grow up to be godly. Unfortunately, as you note, there is some uncertainty about what the text actually says here.
In fact, it’s quite amazing how widely English translations of this statement by Malachi vary. You quoted it from the TNIV (2005); in the latest update to the NIV (2011) it reads, “Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.” So the translators who are responsible for both these editions have rethought things a bit: no longer “God made you one,” but now “the one God made you.” And look at how some other translations of this first part of the statement are even more different:
“Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his.” (NRSV)
“No one who has even a small portion of the Spirit in him does this.” (NET)
“And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit.” (KJV)
“God wants husbands and wives to become one body and one spirit.” (ERV)
“Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life?” (RSV)
(These examples are all taken from the comparison feature on Bible Gateway; you will see even more variety if you visit the site.)
English translations differ so much because of a couple of ambiguities in the Hebrew original. Its wording is quite sparse, so translators need to supply much of what they believe to be the meaning. Its first phase reads either “Did not one make?” or “Did he not make one?” The second part reads either “flesh spirit to him” or “remnant spirit to him” (the same Hebrew consonants provide the root both for the word “flesh” and for the word “remnant”).
So translators need to decide whether Malachi is saying that “the One” (God) made something (and if so, what?), or whether someone (who?) made someone or something to be “one.” They also have to decide whether Malachi is talking about flesh and spirit (meaning the whole person?) or a remnant or residue of the spirit.
These ambiguities are inherent in the original Hebrew and I honestly don’t believe they can be definitively resolved. English translations will continue to differ. However, I think your question can still be answered in light of the context of this statement within the book of Malachi.
In this section of the book, the prophet is warning the people against divorce. (That is why some translations say that what “the One” made was marriage.) Whatever the first part of this statement means, the second part is clear: God is seeking godly offspring—children who will grow up to know Him—and so “do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.” (Translators are widely agreed that this is the meaning of the second part of the statement.)
In other words, even if we don’t have a promise here that godly couples will naturally have godly children, there is an encouraging explanation that God’s design is for faithfulness in marriage to promote faith in children. Indeed, studies have shown that the single most important factor in determining whether the children of Christian parents will grow up to be Christians themselves is whether they perceive that their parents love one another and are committed to each other. This is far more important than whether the children are homeschooled or go to public school, whether the church they attend has a youth pastor, what translation of the Bible the family reads, etc.
So even if there isn’t a promise or a guarantee here, there is certainly hope and encouragement, and a challenge for couples who do “belong to the LORD in body and spirit” to make sure that their marriage is strong and lasting, for the sake of the “godly offspring” they trust God will help them raise.
Q. I have a question that I thought was straightforward but seems to be a point of discussion even among bible scholars. Who was the most prolific writer in the New Testament? I always thought it was Paul, but I heard a well-respected pastor say it was Luke. When I researched the answer online, there seemed to be some debate. How can this be? It seems to me that a person could count the words, chapters, or books written by each and come up with a definitive answer. Why the confusion? Who does deserve the credit?
As I understand it, Luke is the writer responsible for the largest part of the New Testament. This is if we go by word count, i.e. “by volume.” I think that’s more accurate than by book, chapter, or verse, as these can vary greatly in length. (This is true even if Paul wrote Hebrews, which I think is doubtful, but which many believe on the basis of tradition.)
In other words, Luke-Acts (originally written as a single work, though divided and separated in most Bibles) is by itself longer than all thirteen of Paul’s letters combined. You can get a rough idea of this by counting the pages, especially in an edition that has no headings or chapter numbers, like The Books of the Bible (in which Luke-Acts is also restored to unity as a single work). In that edition, Luke-Acts is 99 pages while Paul’s letters are 97 pages–and that number is inflated by the blank space frequently left on the last pages of his many letters. Luke-Acts only has one “last page,” and its page count suffers accordingly. But once again, if we go by words, we discover that Luke actually wrote the largest part of the New Testament.
“St. Luke the Evangelist” (Kazan Cathedral, St. Petersburg), with his traditional symbol, the ox.
Q. I’m pretty sure I know what they mean when they ask John the Baptist at the beginning of the gospel of John,“Are you the Christ?” I kind of know what they mean when they ask, “Are you Elijah?” (although I don’t know if they were thinking actual reincarnation, or just a similar spirit, or whether they would have thought of those as two different things). But I don’t know what they are referring to when they ask, “Are you the Prophet?” Was there a particular prophet they were expecting whose coming was predicted by earlier prophets? And why does John the Baptist say no to this question? It seems like he is at least “a” prophet, right?
“The Prophet” who is asked about here is the one foretold by Moses in Deuteronomy: “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites.” Later in the gospel of John, the people wonder whether Jesus himself might be this Prophet: “After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, ‘Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.’” This was one version of the deliverer figure, along with the Christ or Messiah, that the Jews were expecting in the time of Jesus.
The expectation about Elijah came from a prophecy of Malachi: “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.” John the Baptist’s father Zechariah explained in his song of rejoicing over his son’s birth that he would fulfill this prophecy: “And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah.” It was accepted that the “spirit” of a prophet might come to rest on successor. Right after Elijah himself dies, the narrative in Samuel-Kings reports: “When [Elisha] struck the water, it divided to the right and to the left, and he crossed over. The company of the prophets from Jericho, who were watching, said, ‘The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha.’” I think it was in this sense that Jesus could say about John, “If you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.”
From episodes such as the one you’re asking about, as well as the episode reported in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in which Jesus is associated with John the Baptist (presumably raised from the dead after Herod had executed him), Elijah, or another one of the prophets, it appears that the Jews in Jesus’ time were expecting a figure who would come and turn around the fortunes of the nation, fulfilling the prophecies made in the Old Testament about the Christ or Messiah; Elijah; and “the Prophet.” These figures seem not always to have been clearly distinguished from one another in the popular imagination, as a given person might be regarded as potentially embodying any of them. But there was an important distinction between one of these figures and the other two.
John the Baptist, as we have seen, was definitively identified by both Jesus and his father Zechariah as the “Elijah” who was to come. For his part, the apostle Peter identified Jesus both as the Messiah and as the Prophet when he spoke at the temple after the healing of the lame man there. So while all three of these figures were popularly identified with one another, i.e. regarded almost as if they were one and the same person, it was John the Baptist who fulfilled the prophecies about Elijah, while Jesus fulfilled those about the Messiah (the anointed one) and the Prophet (the successor to Moses).
Peter preaching at the temple. In this sermon Peter identified Jesus as both the Messiah and the Prophet whom the Jews of his time were expecting.
God gave Moses the power to turn his staff into a snake as a sign to authenticate his ministry before the Israelites. But I’m not sure that the snake itself represented the authority and power of God, or of Moses as God’s emissary. We find out shortly afterwards in Exodus that this was the kind of sign that Pharaoh’s magicians were also able to do, and when they pitted their arts against Moses, his snake consumed theirs, showing that God’s power was greater. But once again, I don’t think we need to look for symbolism in the snake itself.
I also don’t think there’s necessarily a connection between God giving Moses the power to turn his staff into a snake and God commanding Moses to make a brazen (brass) snake and put it on a pole. The simple purpose of this was to provide a visual focal point for those who wanted to turn from their rebellion against God and trust Him for healing from the poison of the snakebites.
If there’s any connection between the two incidents, it’s that venomous snakes are dangerous and potentially deadly; that’s why the magicians chose to produce them–to make a memorably scary impression on their audience–and that’s why God used them to send a plague among the people.
In other words, at least as I see it, just because there are snakes involved at two different points in Moses’ ministry, there’s not necessarily a symbolic significance to them, or connection between them, beyond their plain role in the narrative.
There are other places in the Bible where snakes do have a symbolic significance, but this is pointed out clearly in the text, for example, in the book of Revelation, “The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray.”
A good interpretive principle to apply is not to look for symbolic significance in, or attribute it to, an element in narrative unless the text itself points you clearly in that direction.
Nicolas Poussin, “Moses Turning Aaron’s Staff into a Serpent”
Q. I like that you translate the opening of the account as saying “sky” and “land,” since most people assume what’s being mentioned there is the creation of the universe.
Several people I’ve read have been fairly critical of the “Framework View” of this account, mainly because they don’t see the parallelism between the days. I would tend to agree that it does seem like day 2 is the better parallel for day 4 than day 1 (since, if I’m not mistaken, the Hebrews thought that the sun, moon, and stars were in the dome). It also seems like day 3 describes the space created for the sea creatures in day 5, not day 6. Finally, in day 3, there isn’t just a domain created for something to fill but there is also the simultaneous creation of plants to fill the land.
How would you interpret these observations?
My layout of the opening creation account in Genesis does follow what is customarily known as the “Framework View.” Here’s how I’d answer the criticisms of that view which you cite.
First, I see Day 4 as the clear counterpart to Day 1 because Day 4 provides the rulers for the realms created on Day 1. And the language is clearly reminiscent: On Day 1 God separates the light from the darkness, and on Day 4 God creates lights to “separate the day from the night,” to “separate the light from the darkness.” On Day 1 God calls the light “Day” and the darkness “Night,” and on Day 4 God creates two great lights to rule the day and the night. (As I explain in my Genesis study guide, that’s how this account operates. Each realm of creation has its sub-regents, under God’s authority. Humans are created at the end as God’s vice-regents, responsible for all of creation under God.)
Day 2 is the clear counterpart to Day 5 because on Day 2 God makes the dome to separate the waters below the dome from the waters above the dome, i.e. to carve out a demarcated space within the chaotic pre-existing waters. (See this post on the Hebrew view of these waters, which seem to us like eternally existing matter.) Then on Day 5 God populates this carved-out realm, the sea, along with the realm created by the dome itself, the sky.
Day 3 is not about the creation of the seas, it’s about the creation of the land—this is the clear purpose of God’s creative fiat: “Let what is dry appear.” But it is by contrast with the new thing, the land, that the sea is definitively differentiated and named—just as the already-existing darkness gets a name, “Night,” by contrast with “Day.” Sometimes to know what a thing is, you need to know what it is not!
Finally, the green plants are created in the second creative act of Day 3 (“The land brought forth greenery, plants that bore seeds according to their kind, and trees whose seed was in their fruit according to their kind”), and they are mentioned again, in parallel language, in the second creative act of Day 6: “ I have given to you humans as your food every seed-bearing plant that is upon the face of the whole land, and every tree whose fruit makes it a seed-bearing tree.” So we need to understand these plants, even though they are living things (in our view), not as part of the population of the land, but rather as part of that realm itself, making it habitable for people and animals, who are its population proper.
Thanks very much for your questions, and I hope these clarifications are helpful!
Land emerges from the sea as a new volcanic island is formed south of Japan. Land emerging from the sea is the concern of Day 3 of creation in the Genesis account, although a very different mechanism is envisioned.
I thought it would be good to start the new year with a fresh look at the start of the Bible.
As I explain in this post, one of my keen interests is to explore how we can illustrate the structure and composition of biblical writings by the way we lay out their text on the page. Here’s another one of my recent endeavors: a layout in twin columns of the Days of Creation from the beginning of Genesis. Click on the link just below to view or download a PDF of this layout so that you can follow my discussion of it in the rest of the post.
When we lay out the text in this way, we get a number of insights into it. (These features of the account have long been noted by interpreters, but I try to illustrate them visually here.)
First, we see that the account begins with a summary heading and ends with a summary conclusion. Each epitomizes the basic project of creation, which is to make “a place for everything” and then put “everything in its place.” At the start, the land has no “shape” (or structure)–no place to put anything. It has no “substance”–nothing upon it. But by the end, “the sky and the land” (realms of habitation) have been created, as well as “everything in them” (their inhabitants).
This layout uses my own personal translation of the Genesis creation account, which first appeared in the book I co-authored with Dr. Stephen J. Godfrey, Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation (now available free online through the link provided). I use the terms “sky” and “land” in the introduction and conclusion because these are the very same Hebrew terms used for the “sky” when it is created on the second day and the “land” when it is created on the third day, and for these locations everywhere else in the account. This translation brings out the fact that creation is being described from the perspective of an earth-bound observer.
I also follow the textual choices recommended in Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which are supported by ancient versions and some Hebrew manuscripts. These make the account much more regular and consistent in terms of what happens on each day and in what order. With slight variations along the way, this is basically: Divine creative command: “God said” Compliance report (summary): “It was so” Compliance report (detailed): “God made . . .” Divine approval: “God saw that it was good” Naming/blessing Refrain: “There was evening, and there was morning . . .”
This is, in other words, a royal command and compliance chronicle, much like the other places in the Old Testament where God’s commands are recorded and then the narrative is very careful to document how so-and-so did exactly what God had commanded.
This is what we see when we read each column down. When we read across, we see the parallels between opposite days. On Day 1, God makes day and night; on Day 4, God populates the day and the night. The language of Day 4 echoes that of Day 1: “God separated the light from the darkness”; “to separate the light from the darkness.” The same process of first creating realms and then populating them, with similar echoes of language, also happens on Days 2 and 5, and on Days 3 and 6.
When we read across the columns we also see that the first two pairs of days have one divine command, while Days 3 and 6 have double commands. This is a nice echo of a feature of Hebrew poetry: a third line, when used, typically is “weighty” and has an anchoring effect.
I’ve used italics to show how each day ends with the same refrain.
As you look at the text in this translation and layout, what else do you notice that you might not have seen in a more traditional presentation?
A reader interacts with the layout and I respond in this post.
Winslow Homer, “Eastern Point.” For me this painting captures well the elemental realms of creation: sea, sky, and land.
Q. Newsweek just published an article called “The Bible: So Misunderstood That it’s a Sin” — I found the article so loaded with half-truths that it needs to be addressed. Could you be so kind to take a look at this? I really enjoy your Blog!
Thanks for alerting me to this article, which I see was published provocatively only two days before Christmas! Its basic premises are summarized at the end:
“The Bible is a very human book. It was written, assembled, copied and translated by people. That explains the flaws, the contradictions, and the theological disagreements in its pages. Once that is understood, it is possible to find out which parts of the Bible were not in the earliest Greek manuscripts, which are the bad translations, and what one book says in comparison to another, and then try to discern the message for yourself. And embrace what modern Bible experts know to be the true sections of the New Testament.”
But these so-called “modern Bible experts”–only three of them–turn out to be skeptical, critical scholars like Bart Ehrman whose work reflects a strong bias against belief in the Bible as the inspired word of God and as a coherent and faithful reflection of God’s dealings and communications with the community of faith over the centuries. It’s no wonder that with sources like these, the article reaches the conclusions it does.
By relying only on sources that hold one view of the issue, the article violates one of the basic tenets of journalism, which is to tell both sides of a story objectively.
Others have had the space and opportunity to respond to this article at more length and in more depth than I will be able to. (Here, for example, is an articulate response by Albert Mohler, and here is another fine one from New Testament Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace.) But let me at least acknowledge the accuracy of your perception that the Newsweek article is “loaded with half-truths.” Here’s just one example.
The article says of the pericope of the woman caught in adultery, “Scribes made it up sometime in the Middle Ages.” By contrast, Bruce Metzger, a universally respected expert in New Testament textual criticism, says in his Textual Commentary on the New Testament, “The account has all the earmarks of historical veracity,” even if it is not considered to have been an original part of the gospel of John. The international committee he served with to edit a critical text of the N.T. therefore decided, “in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage,” to include it “within double square brackets at its traditional place” in John. Virtually every other claim in the Newsweek article could be similarly examined and critiqued.
But I think that those who believe in the Bible as the trustworthy and inspired word of God can still take some legitimate challenge from this article. At the start it presents some research by organizations that, if anything, are favorable towards this view, rather than hostile to it, and who found the following:
“A Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. ‘Americans revere the Bible—but, by and large, they don’t read it,’’ wrote George Gallup Jr. and Jim Castelli, pollsters and researchers whose work focused on religion in the United States. The Barna Group, a Christian polling firm, found in 2012 that evangelicals accepted the attitudes and beliefs of the Pharisees—religious leaders depicted throughout the New Testament as opposing Christ and his message—more than they accepted the teachings of Jesus.”
These findings, rather than the biased and inflammatory claims about the Bible, are what should really make us upset–with ourselves. If we truly love and honor the Bible, then let’s read it, become immersed in its teachings–supremely those of Jesus–and then live them out. In that sense I do accept a valid challenge from at least this small part of the Newsweek article.
Thanks again for your question!
The original questioner comments: My friend Stephen M. Miller (love his books) also commented on the Newsweek article — thought you would enjoy his blog entry. Blessed New Year to you!
Q. Why did God, through Isaiah, instruct King Ahaz to ask for a sign? It reads like God was weary with Ahaz for not asking. Do you know why?
We tend to think of asking for a sign as a negative thing because of Jesus’ statements in the gospels that, for example, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign.” But this refers to asking for a sign from God as a condition of belief or obedience, or as proof that God is really present with us. On other occasions God offers a sign, or even invites us to ask for one, as a token and pledge that He will keep a promise, and as evidence that He is already at work to fulfill it.
Jesus himself refused to ask for a sign as a condition of belief and obedience when the devil tempted him to throw himself off the heights of the temple to prove that God would rescue him. To reject this temptation, Jesus quoted what Moses said in Deuteronomy: “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” Moses was referring to what the Israelites had done in the wilderness when they reached a place where there was no water and asked, “Is the Lord among us or not?” In other words, the Israelites were making the miraculous provision of water there a condition of their continuing belief and obedience.
It may appear that Ahaz is simply following this same principle, because he also says, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” But most interpreters agree that this is actually just a pious excuse, because Ahaz wants to continue on the course he has already chosen–not to trust in the Lord, but to make a military and political alliance with Assyria, which will require him to worship Assyrian gods instead.
God sends Isaiah to assure Ahaz that he can trust Him instead, and God even offers to let Ahaz ask for any sign he wants (“let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven“) as a token and pledge that God plans to deliver him from the nations that are invading. But Ahaz declines, and that is why God is weary with him.
We see God offering this same kind of sign in other places in the Bible as well. For example, when King Hezekiah (Ahaz’s son, but a good and godly king) was ill, God promised him through Isaiah that he would recover. Isaiah offered, referring to the royal sundial, “This shall be the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he has promised: shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or go back ten steps?” Hezekiah chose the much more remarkable sign of the shadow going backward, and it was granted.
So we today should be on the lookout for any “sign” God may be offering us in token and pledge that He will fulfill His promises to us (including matters of individual guidance that we have received), and as evidence that He is already at work to this end. Perhaps we may even feel the freedom to ask for such a sign–not as a condition of belief or obedience, but as confirmation that we have heard correctly and are hoping and working for the right things, in cooperation with God’s purposes.
(This, I believe, was the nature of the sign that Gideon, for example, asked for using a fleece of wool. He was already actively involved in the mission God had assigned to him; when God granted this sign, it was simply to confirm the instructions and strengthen Gideon in his obedience.)
Good Question 