Matt Postiff's Blog

Today's question has to do with Ezekiel being called the "son of man." Sometimes it is in lower case, and sometimes in upper case. Is there any significance to that?

The question arose because last Sunday I spoke on the "Son of Man" terminology from Luke 22:69 and connected it to Daniel 7:13-14. I said that the phrase did not merely indicate the humanity of Christ, but is also connected to His deity and right to rule as divine King over the Messianic kingdom. The San Hedrin council understood this connection because they then asked Jesus, "Are You then the Son of God?" When Jesus affirmed that proposition, they condemned Him to death.

In Ezekiel, God refers to the prophet as the son of man, but in those uses it has no Messianic implication. God is referring to Ezekiel as a man, who is unlike God, as in Psalm 8:4—"What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him?" See also Psalm 144:3, 146:3; Isaiah 56:2; Jer. 49:18, 49:33, 50:40, and 51:43.

About the capitalization of "son of man" in Ezekiel, I did a case-sensitive computerized search in the NKJV and found that "Son of Man" (both capitalized) does not occur in the book. That dual capitalization would mean that the translators believe the phrase to refer to the Messiah, as it does in Matthew 8:20. In Ezekiel, "Son of man" is capitalized with a single capital 'S' at the beginning of a sentence or direct address in quotation marks. And sometimes it is dual lowercase, "son of man" when the phrase does not occur at the beginning of a sentence or quotation. So, there is no significance to the capitalization in Ezekiel; all references are to Ezekiel the prophet, not to the Messiah.

It is also interesting that Ezekiel is never called "the" son of man. But in the gospels, Jesus is often called "the" Son of Man. So for Ezekiel, "son of man" refers to his humanity. For Jesus, "Son of Man" does refer to His humanity, but in a different way. He is the perfect man, the second Adam, and as such, the title points us to His Messianic office and in effect His deity.

In the United States, the Sovereign Citizen or Sovereign Citizenship (SC) movement is a collection of groups who believe that the U.S. government is illegitimate and that they can through various means liberate themselves from the laws, regulations, taxes, and penalties of the government.

According to the Bible, SC a false teaching. Here is why:

1. It denies governmental authority over the individual, when in fact God has ordained the governing authorities and they are to be obeyed inasmuch as they do not command something contrary to Scripture (Romans 13:1-7). Scripture commands the payment of taxes, and respect for law enforcement.

2. It has a strongly anti-authoritarian bent, which runs contrary to the Christian doctrine of submission (Eph. 5:21, 1 Peter 5:5) and respect of leaders (1 Thess. 5:12-13).

3. It suggests schemes to “legally” default on debt or have it paid by some other entity, running contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture that those who borrow and do not repay are wicked (Psalm 37:21). Tax fraud is also a common theme in SC thought, with some creating fake churches and claiming to be ministers to take advantage of tax benefits.

4. It teaches squatter’s rights, which amounts to theft of property that belongs to someone else. Again, this is contrary to God’s word, which forbids stealing (Exodus 20:15).

5. Some SC adherents have borrowed theological concepts: Christian patriot, created sovereign by God, Kingdom of God, Synagogue of Satan, and mark of the beast. They claim that sovereignty of the citizen comes from God and the Bible and common law, among other things. Some claim that the world is controlled by corporations only interested in their profit and power. These ideas run contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture that God is the true sovereign over all things (Psalm 103:19) no matter what temporal powers He may permit to exist at any given time.

The SC doctrine has caused some adherents to reject organized religion because it limits the person’s autonomy, and they may reject any guilt or shame as manipulation tactics. This meshes well with the culture’s common thought that people can be “spiritual” but not “religious.” This allows a sort of spiritual free agency with no accountability to others, which agrees with the anti-authoritarian bent of SC but not with God’s design for the church.

Churches should be ready to stand against the SC doctrine, because people who start to believe it will likely be drawn away to follow these false teachers instead of Christ (Acts 20:30).

References

A Quick Guide to Sovereign Citizens, UNC School of Government, 2013.

Sovereign citizens: A narrative review with implications of violence towards law enforcement.

The religious concepts of the Sovereign Citizens Movement by Daryl Johnson.

Links to This Article

Bert Perry, The Sovereign Citizen Movement.

Another question:

This question is about Deuteronomy 23:3 and the prohibition of Moabites entering the assembly out to 10 generations. How does Ruth's Moabite heritage and inclusion in Jesus's lineage square with this verse? Does Ruth's assertion that Naomi's God is her God indicate that she is now a proselyte and has given up her original national heritage?

Moses spoke/wrote Deuteronomy 23 roughly around 1405 B.C. (assuming a conservative date for the Exodus at 1445 B.C., plus 40 years of wandering in the wilderness). It is hard to pin Ruth on a timeline, but some suggested dates are around 1290 or 1115 B.C. The earlier date would put Ruth about 115 years after Moses wrote Deuteronomy 23:3. That is only perhaps four or five generations assuming 20 to 25 years per generation. If Ruth entered Israel around 1115, that would be 290 years, which is about 11 generations. That would surpass the "10 generations" requirement.

A complication arises when we read to the end of verse 3 and also the end of verse 6. There, the word "forever" is used. Perhaps it is the case that "ten generations" is a figure of speech that really means "never." That would make your question more difficult because the condition would be more stringent.

Another issue is the genealogy of David: Boaz and Ruth had Obed, who bore Jesse, and Jesse bore David (Ruth 4:18-20). David was 30 years old when he became king (2 Samuel 5:4) in what we best estimate is about 1010 B.C. If we suppose that Obed was 20 when he had Jesse, and Jesse was 20 when he had David, plus the 30 years until David reigned, working backward that would be 1010+30+20+20 = 1090 B.C. That would put Ruth closer to the 1115 date than the 1290 date. And from all the genealogies we have of David in the Bible, the list Boaz-Obed-Jesse-David does not seem to have any missing links or gaps in it so we cannot stretch it too far. Even if we suppose the men were older, say 60, when they had their children, that would only work out to 1010+30+60+60 (if I have my math right—you can check it) and that would only put is back to 1160 B.C. which is still safe for the 10-generation requirement. And one other point on this: since David was at least eighth in the birth order of his family, assuming 20 years of age for Jesse above is somewhat unrealistic. He was probably closer to 30, putting Boaz and Ruth's marriage closer to 1100 B.C.

Anyway, there are a few other points, one of which you have raised in your question. The first point is that Ruth has abandoned her idolatrous religion and connections. The beautiful confession of Ruth 1:16-17 shows that she had become a Jewish proselyte. I believe that is completely sufficient to remove her from the curse on the Moabites in Deuteronomy 23:3, because she is disowning them and what they did/do. She is fully embracing Yahweh.

The second point is that Ruth was a woman, and once she was married to a Jewish man, and then again to a very faithful Jewish man (Boaz), she would come under his wing. Her Moabite heritage would be not erased, but in some measure it would be emptied of significance if she was faithful to her husband. Of course, any woman could bring her idolatrous beliefs into a marriage and ruin the man and the family, but that was not the case here.

A third point: The Moabites and Midianites were confederated in the Balaam incident in Numbers 22 (see 22:4). Later in Numbers 31:18 Moses permitted the people of Israel to keep the young virgins of the Midianites for themselves after the battle had destroyed everyone else. It seems that the women were exempt from a curse and could be integrated into the nation. Perhaps this same principle applies to Ruth.

God is gracious, and I think this truth justifies exception cases like this one, regardless of whether all of the above reasoning is somewhat flawed. For example, God will not justify the wicked. But he justifies us who are definitely wicked, on the basis of His grace in Christ. He includes in the genealogy of Jesus Ruth (Moabite), Tamar (Jewish prostitute), Rahab (Jericho prostitute), and Bathsheba (Jewish adulteress). We do not know if Tamar and Bathsheba had saving faith in God, but Ruth and Rahab did. In any case, God is full of grace and compassion, and general rules can be overcome by grace-based exceptions.

Today's question:

In Deuteronomy 15:4 it says there will be no poor among the Israelites because of the abundance of the land they are entering. Then later in the same chapter (15:11) it says there will never cease to be poor in the land. I know the Bible isn’t contradicting itself, but I wondered how to understand these two statements.

I just received this question, and I happened to notice the same thing in my reading of the Legacy Standard Bible earlier this year. I had not considered it before because the NKJV, my normal reading Bible, offers a different translation:

NKJV Deut 15:4 "except when there may be no poor among you; for the LORD will greatly bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance."

But when I read the LSB, I noticed the problem:

LSB Deut 15:4 "However, there will be no needy one among you, since Yahweh will surely bless you in the land which Yahweh your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess."

The supposed contradiction arises in 15:11 where the translations are in agreement: "For the poor will never case from the land" and "For the needy will never cease to be in the land."

I think the NKJV translators noticed the discrepancy and wanted to help the reader understand what is going on. But I believe the key to understanding that there is no contradiction is that verse 5 contains an IF clause that controls the prior verse. IF you will carefully obey God, then you will be blessed. The idea is that if they are obedient to God, they will be so blessed that they will not have any poverty. This is in accord with the general promises of blessing under the Mosaic covenant. However, given the reality of depravity, the condition of verse 11 will be the normal situation—because of sin, oppression, disobedience, and God's disfavor, there will be poverty amongst the people. That poverty will be one of the curses of disobedience.

To this the words of the Lord Jesus agree, for in Matthew 26:11 he says, "For you have the poor with you always."

An entitlement mentality has crept into the church over the years. For example, some people do not seem concerned that they are reliant on government handouts when they should be working diligently to supply their needs (or drawing off savings that they earned while doing such work). The entitlement mindset is not befitting a Christian. But there is another type of freeloading that is even more concerning, and I call it ecclesiastical freeloading (or church mooching, if you prefer).

A little background teaching first:

1 Corinthians 9:11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? (NKJV)

Romans 15:27 It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things. (NKJV)

The Bible makes it clear that “the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.” This refers to pastors and missionaries and those in vocational ministry. Those who benefit from the teaching, ministry, administration, counseling, writing, sermons, etc. of these ministers must support the work that is providing that edification.

The problem is that some people are watching church services from home without any real attachment to the church that they are watching. This became very common during the COVID pandemic of 2020-21 and now beyond. The feeling of entitlement has settled in so that we want to get our church like we get our sources of entertainment, or like we get our schooling by watching online lectures. And we want it for free—but it is not free.

The online audience does not offer financial support to keep the cameras going, the lights on, the Internet bill paid, etc. They do not support the pastor’s time, or the missionaries or general budget of the church. They do not attend the worship service, participate in singing, help with cleaning, join in evangelism, use their spiritual gifts, or anything else. They benefit but do not pay. They use all their finances for other things.

This is what I mean by ecclesiastical freeloading.

If you are in that category, please begin to support the church that is feeding your soul. And I do not only mean with money because that is not the most important part. Begin to be a true part (member) of the church.

On the other hand, if you are supporting a local church’s ministry in the kinds of ways I outline above, THANK YOU! Keep up the good work. God is using good churches to make His will known in His word, to seek the lost, to restrain evil, to uphold the weak, to admonish the unruly, and to comfort the fainthearted. This takes people, time, and money, and your support in doing God’s will will result in fruit in your heavenly account.

A tract is a pamphlet, usually of a religious nature or sometimes political. Someone could hand out a tract advocating the gospel, or the pro-life movement, or support for Gaza. Christians have passed out tracts for generations.

Some people call them “tracks,” but the actual word is tract with a T at the end. Tract is a shortened form of the word tractate which is a formal and often more lengthy version of a tract. Both words derive from the Latin tractatus which is a discussion or treatise about some topic. A treatise is a detailed and organized written document about a topic. In common usage, a treatise is usually quite long. A tract is always very short, usually no more than four or six small pages folded as a booklet or tri-fold.

People have been saved by reading Christian tracts. It would be good for you to carry a few with you in a pocket or purse so that you can give one to someone you meet at a store or restaurant or wherever. We have a couple nearby our front door so that if a salesperson comes and we think it is appropriate, we can give him or her a tract. We like using the so-called Bridge tract but there are others as well.

Finally, consider studying a good tract so that you can store its contents in your mind. You never know when you may need to share the good news verbally with someone and you can draw on your memory and adapt it to the circumstance at hand.

FBC was recently mentioned in the local amateur radio club blog. The ARROW club holds FCC license testing once a month and recently held training at our church building to prepare to move from paper testing to electronic testing. Our church opened a space for them after the Red Cross building became unavailable during COVID.

Amateur radio is a technical hobby having to do with radio reception and transmission, antennas, electronics, and the like. It is squarely in the STEM knowledge area. Many of these hobbyists also participate in emergency and community services. For example, some are storm spotters, others are ready to assist hospitals and general communications in the event of a disaster such as an earthquake or fire. Some assist with passing messages at community events like bicycle rides. Others—the volunteer examiners or VEs—do testing and training to help young people get into the hobby, which sometimes directs them onto a career path in electronics and communications.

We are glad to be able to provide a community service to this group and to help them, as Dan KB6NU says, to "religiously" carry on their radio testing.

Here is a question I received a few months ago from a young parent. How should we address the problem of evil with young children, specifically the evil associated with Halloween? It is so very present and surrounds us everywhere we go these days, and naturally our daughter is asking a lot of questions. I often state that it is bad and evil and just "not good." But I don’t know how to present to her Scripturally "why" besides that it is scary and that it is not kind, or that it is not good things to think about, and God wants us to think about good things. She often asks "why do they have those things?" Or "why is it bad?" Another young mom friend I know is struggling with the same thing with her toddler. How can I explain our disagreement with Halloween in general?

This is a very good question, and very timely when it was asked in October (I know, I'm late posting this to my blog...hopefully it will help someone in 2025 and beyond!). Here are some thoughts for you.

1. It is ok to say it is bad, but as you have sensed, you need to be able to say why.

2. Many of the holidays that we celebrate, and indeed all of them that we should celebrate, exist to honor God in some way. They are Godward in their focus. Consider Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, even our birthdays (because God gave us life). Even holidays like Memorial day and independence day and Veterans day should have a Godward focus because it is the sovereign God who provided these blessings to us and the sacrifices that they represent point us to a greater sacrifice. In fact, the word itself, holiday, is derived from "holy day."

3. But Halloween is not celebrated to honor God nor to uplift holiness.

4. Halloween focuses on celebrating the dead. But our focus is not to be on the dead.

5. Halloween focuses on things like skeletons, ghosts, witches, all the realm of death and the Devil, again not about God. It has a tendency to stimulate interest in death, which is not a healthy subject for young people to dwell on. Similar things are done with young people in secular schools today, trying to stimulate interest in sexuality, gender transition, etc. This "holiday" also desensitizes young people to the demonic realm. We do not want them to treat that lightly.

6. Today Halloween is also about having fun. There is nothing wrong with having some fun and giving away and enjoying candy (in moderation) but modern culture has turned it into a huge commercial holiday about money and candy and costumes. This is not necessary for us.

7. Conservative Christians want to avoid the pagan association of practicing Halloween: "Halloween's origins can be traced back to the ancient Celtic festival known as Samhain, which was held on November 1 in contemporary calendars. It was believed that on that day, the souls of the dead returned to their homes, so people dressed in costumes and lit bonfires to ward off spirits." (Britannica online encyclopedia) There were other very abominable acts such as sacrifices and immorality. This is very incorrect theology and we cannot be associated with it. The celebration of evil, death, and demonic activity is not befitting a Christian. These things are coordinate with pagan "theology."

8. Christian parents should not ignore Halloween. But they are not required to do something in place of it. It may be instructive and helpful to not do something in place of it “just to make my child feel included.” Feeling included is not a spiritual virtue that we need to teach about dark holidays. But you could do something in place of it, like a harvest remembrance, as long as it is more a “holy day” than a “secular day.” We can thankfully welcome the fall harvest of God’s provision.

9. You have given good answers about the kinds of things we should fill our minds with. Fear and violence and boundary-pushing costumes are antithetical to the Christian faith and ought not be the subjects of our meditation, much less our money which belongs to God. Things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous and praiseworthy should fill our minds.

10. Christians are to be children of life and light, not death and darkness.

11. Things like fortune-telling, seances, etc. are forbidden in the Law of Moses and we see no instruction in the New Testament that makes those things now permissible (Deut. 18).

12. Halloween brings to the surface some of the spiritual battle in which we are engaged. Things sometimes "under the table" through the year are brought to the surface. Daniel 10:13.

13. In short, Halloween is closely associated with spiritual darkness instead of spiritual light. We are to be all about light.

14. Watch the slippery slope for yourself, and the generational slope that you can create for your children. Instead, set them on level spiritual ground, a stable position which they can move forward on into the next generation. It is likely that cultural practices will only become more edgy and debauched as time goes on.

15. Is there a redeeming value to Halloween? No.

16. Is celebration of Halloween necessary? No.

17. See this article by Phil Cecil.

I heard that your pet dog or cat died today.

I am very sorry to hear the news. When this happens, I am reminded of Proverbs 12:10. Why don't you take a moment to look that up in your copy of God's word and see what it says? Christian people care for their animals, as they should because animals are part of God's creation and we have been assigned stewardship over them. Animals cause us toil and tears from time to time, but they also bring great joy. God has created them for our enjoyment and use (Gen. 1:26-28). They also to help us learn responsibility. But they can also become a misplaced priority that reduces our love for God or our resources to do God's work.

We are thankful to God in every situation (1 Thess. 5:18). I am thankful that you had the years of enjoyment that you did with your beloved pet. I am sure you are ten times more thankful than I am because you had a personal stewardship connection with the animal. I hope you will make the conscious choice to thank God for His gift of your pet, so that instead of focusing on what you no longer have, you thank God for what He gave.

Sometimes people ask me if their pet will be in heaven. We naturally hope that the answer is "yes," but we do not have Biblical data to indicate this is the case. We know there will be animals in the millennial kingdom (Isaiah 11:6-9). Scripture does not say explicitly that there will be animals in Heaven. However, it seems plausible that there will be animals there because when God created animals in the beginning, they were part of his "very good" creation (Gen. 1:31). In other words, there is nothing "wrong" with animals that would prohibit their presence in Heaven. In fact, we know that some of the angelic beings appear to be part animal in form (Ezekiel 3:10).

A diverse and peaceful animal kingdom in the Heavenly state would glorify God because they would show His handiwork for all eternity. Of course, redeemed people will show God's saving handiwork in a far more significant way. Animals were hurt as a result of mankind's fall into sin (Romans 8:22) and in the restoration of all things it would be fitting for the animal kingdom to be restored from the suffering of death. But the Bible does not indicate salvation or after-life for animals. So while I cannot say that your particular pet will be in heaven, I believe that animals like your beloved pet will be there. There will likely be some that look similar or are even more wonderful than your pet (if that is possible!). But of course, our focus in heaven will not be on pets or the environment; rather, it will be focused squarely on the Triune God.

Meanwhile, look to the Lord for comfort and guidance so that you are not overwhelmed with sorrow and lose sight of why you are here on this planet--to trust in God through Christ, to live for God, to honor God, to worship God, and to do good works. May He help you do that in these days and also give you wisdom about your next steps.

May God's grace direct you toward Himself so that you not be overtaken with inordinate grief.

Here is today's question:

How do you answer in your own heart His words in Matthew 23:37-38 where Jesus says, “How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate...” This desire is not a reflection of special grace, but how can you explain this longing of God that never in fact came to pass?

Answer: This saying comes immediately after the Lord’s lamentation that the Jewish people had a habit of killing the prophets and rejecting God’s messengers. This wicked tendency grieved God not only because it indicated a damaged relationship where the people were not welcoming Him as their God, but that it had terrible temporal and eternal consequences. Despite these necessary and natural consequences, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11).

Like an extremely patient human father or national leader, instead of rejection, what the Lord was hoping for was that they would receive him, along the lines of making a commitment to this effect: “You will be our God, and we will be your people.” God is pictured as a caring hen who wants to protect and provide warmth for her chicks. But the little chickens were unwilling. They refused God’s care and protection. They wanted to go their own way.

The longing of God which did not come to pass is parallel with many other of God’s desires in Scripture that are morally right but which do not come to pass because, ultimately, God did not decree those things to come to pass. God’s decree is the primary or first cause. But there is a secondary cause which is the human element, because people are immoral and desire bad things. People do not always (or often?) follow God’s desired or moral will.

God has good reasons for His decree, the highest of these to demonstrate His great glory—including the glory of His longsuffering, love, grace and forgiveness. He also has in mind the long-term good of His creatures. My answer touches on what theologians call “theodicy,” or “justification of God” which attempts to explain exactly how God does such things which we see as contradictory or difficult. A full “theodicy” in this brief article is not possible. Suffice it to say that in some things, God decrees what He hates in order to bring about what He loves. God decrees in temporal history those things which are unpleasant to Him in order to achieve a greater eternal good. God decrees that which is undesirable in one sense so that He can accomplish something more desirable. God decrees things that we would not in order to accomplish results, like His greatest glory, which are beyond the horizon of our present sight and understanding.

Jesus speaks of Himself as God in human terms (using the figure of speech called an anthropomorphism) so that we can understand His stance toward mankind. It is not a harsh stance. It is not a judgmental, hyper-critical, hateful kind of stance. It is a forbearing, caring, loving stance.

Think of a good human judge. He cares for the people who come into his courtroom. But he also is bound to execute justice. If he is visited by someone who does wrong, and he gives a light sentence and an admonition to do better, he shows his care for them. He hopes that they will listen and heed his warnings. He earnestly hopes so because if they do not, he knows that they have to face consequences for wrongdoing. If that person comes into his courtroom another time with a more serious offense, the judge might say, “Oh, how I wish you had heard what I said, but you refused. Now I have to punish you in accordance with what is right.” God is like this judge, but the offenses have been multiplied over and over again by the Jewish people and their leaders for generations. At some point Jerusalem has to face the consequences.

Finally, we should remember one more fact. The initial question assumes that God’s desire never in fact came to pass, that is, that Israel was not gathered under His wings. But that is only for the time being. In the future, God will gather Israel, and they will at that time be very willing. Ultimately, God’s longing will come to pass, for the nation as a whole, though not for specific historical individuals who might otherwise have enjoyed God’s blessing had they not been so hard-hearted.

Back in 2004, Pastor Charles Mason filled the pulpit at Fellowship Bible Church for a couple of months. During that time he shared with us a song that he wrote which was entitled The River of God. An ensemble sang it this morning. Here are the words, with a link to the audio below.

There's a river, says the Psalmist,
Prophets saw it deep and broad,
Flowing ever outward, ever springing
From the throne of God,
Coming from the well of Joseph,
Making fruitful branches crawl,
Ever upward, ever outward,
Casting fruit beyond the wall,

(Refrain) Oh the Spirit and the Bride say come!
And everyone that thirsteth now may come!
Without money, without price,
drink the sweet water of life,
So come without delay,
my friend, please come!

Strangers taste it sweet as honey,
Others say it tastes like gall,
Come and buy it without money,
Whoso on the Lord shall call.
River flowing, trees there growing
All along the blessed stream,
Showing forth the gospel story,
Record of the eternal scheme.

Let us then be channels yielded,
To the Lord of harvest great,
Let the river flow unhindered,
Souls will meet us at the gate.
Crowns of joy will they be to us,
Souls who from the Living Well,
Drank so deeply and now safely
Gathered home their story tell.

Could we ever be more useful,
Could there ever be for man,
A greater, nobler calling
Than our God's eternal plan?
Oh the Spirit and the Bridge say come!
And he that hath no money, yes may come!
Take Jesus as your Savior,
and you'll never thirst again,
so come without delay my friend, please come!

You can listen here: RiverOfGodCharlesMasonFellowshipBibleChurch.mp3.

You can download the PDF here: River of God Eb Major Hymn Style.pdf.

Pastor Mason is very ill right now in comfort care in his home state of Maine. Please pray for him and his wife Gloria.

Update 4/28/2024 evening: We learned that Pastor Mason went to heaven the evening before I published this article.

Today's question was presented in lengthy form, but boils down to this: Why do some Bible verses use the word "straw" to describe what is fed to animals? Straw has little sustenance value. Isiaah 11:7 says that the lion will eat straw like the ox. This translation grates on the nerves of a farmer, for every farmer knows that you do not feed straw to an ox; you feed the ox dried hay or grass or perhaps oats, but not the yellow, dried stalks of wheat. It seems unlikely that the Bible is suggesting a low-calorie diet for the animals; straw can be used to dilute the energy content of the animal's diet or "dry it out" and provide some forage. But a diet completely of straw is infeasible.

I believe the most concise answer is that the Hebrew term "teben" (soft b, like a v, like "teh-ven") in some contexts refers to "cattle fodder" and would be better translated as "hay" or "feed."

I puzzled over this perhaps 20 years ago but did not come to a satisfactory conclusion because I had more important things to do at the time (and still do!). I thought then and still have some of this thinking left in me now, that the translators are a bit ignorant when it comes to animal husbandry. Growing up myself on a small ranch/farm, I am well aware of the difference between straw and hay, at least in our context of mainly wheat straw and grass/alfafa/timothy hay. Indeed, straw does not have much if any nutritional value. It is used for bedding in stalls, or as a ground cover for muddy areas or to protect areas of newly planted grass.

I suspect that the Hebrew term has what is called "wider semantic domain" than our more specific English terms for hay or straw. It seems that it must refer to the portion of the plant above ground, sometimes what is left behind after harvesting grain = straw and other times the whole plant = grass/alfalfa/etc.

I would advocate the translation of such "feed" passages as "hay" or "grass" or something similar. I think the translators have simply gotten it wrong in this case, badly so, and nearly universally so as indicated by a brief perusal of several translations in passages like Isaiah 11:7, 65:25.

Other passages use straw in a way that is clearly not food: Isaiah 25:10. And others are somewhat ambiguous but could refer to bedding/comfort instead of food: 1 Kings 4:28, Gen. 24:32.

Note "hay" in 1 Cor. 3:12 and Prov. 27:25. And then "mowings" in Psalm 72:6, Amos 7:1, and James 5:4.