Introduction<\/p>\n
Three years have passed since Lexham Press first decided to compile some of my Bible Study Magazine articles for publication as a book. The result was I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible. In the introduction to that book I made the assertion that \u201ctruly understanding much of the Bible requires seeing it in its original context, not filtering it through a familiar tradition.\u201d1 I\u2019m more committed to that proposition now than I was even then. That idea is the motivation behind this second collection of articles, so the premise deserves some consideration.2
\nWhen we write or speak with the intention of being understood, we naturally consider our audience. Whether we\u2019re speaking to a toddler, writing an email to a parent, evaluating an employee, or clearing up a misunderstanding with a friend, we use vocabulary, style, and illustrative phrases drawn from common experiences, mutual intellectual perceptions, and familiar social situations. If we did not, we would have no right to expect to be understood. In fact, we would be misunderstood, perhaps quite disastrously. Our words derive from, and are shaped by, these factors. In other words, we understand each other to the extent that we share life\u2014or, to put it less elegantly in a way only scholars can manage, to the extent that we share a cognitive framework.
\nThe sort of connection between a writer and a reader that produces successful communication\u2014with \u201csuccess\u201d being defined as the writer\u2019s intended thoughts being well comprehended by the reader\u2014cannot occur without shared worldview and outlook. The biblical writers wanted to be understood. They did not write with the intention of miscommunicating. More fundamentally, God wanted his thoughts, character, and purposes grasped with clarity. He prepared and chose men to accomplish that task, not to insert obstacles to that task. This means that those of us living thousands of years after the words of Scripture were written face a predicament. We come from a different world. We did not share life with them. We are not of one mind in a multitude of ways.
\nThe hard work of translation has made it possible to read the words of the biblical writers. But communication involves far more than taking words of one language and converting them into the words of another. Sharing outlook and worldview\u2014life as it were\u2014makes those words comprehensible. I can tell a Chinese friend that \u201cabortion is a hot potato in America,\u201d but he\u2019ll never know what I mean by merely knowing the words \u201chot\u201d and \u201cpotato\u201d in English. This idiomatic expression can only be understood by experience within American culture or plenty of exposure to Americans. In another conversation my words may be intended to be understood metaphorically. I might refer to some object or concept whose symbolic, iconic meaning is what I wanted him to catch so that I might be understood. He needs me living in his head (that is, he needs to understand my worldview) to really fathom what I\u2019m talking about.
\nIt\u2019s true that some things in Scripture\u2014often very important events and ideas\u2014are communicated with simplicity and in ways that transcend this chronological chasm. But the reverse is also true. Many passages in Scripture are quite perplexing. More troubling is the fact that a good number of our traditional, presumed understandings do not align with what the writer likely intended at all. The correct response to this is not despair. While we can\u2019t understand everything in Scripture with perfect precision, we can understand a great deal once we connect to the worldview and outlook of the writers. It would be absurd to conclude that since it\u2019s impossible to achieve exhaustive comprehension of the Bible we shouldn\u2019t study it. Since you cannot know that everything you eat is entirely optimal for what your body needs at any given point should you stop eating?
\nWe are blessed to have access to more information that connects us to the contexts of the biblical writers than ever before. My goal as a scholar is not only to alert you to the need for getting connected to those contexts, but to give you a head start. My prayer is that The Bible Unfiltered will do just that.<\/p>\n
Michael S. Heiser
\nBellingham, WA<\/p>\n
Part One<\/p>\n
Interpreting the Bible Responsibly<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
Serious Bible Study Isn\u2019t for Sissies<\/p>\n
One of my favorite scholarly quotations about the hard work of seriously engaging the biblical text\u2014what we popularly call Bible study\u2014is that of the renowned Greek lexicographer, Frederick W. Danker (the \u201cD\u201d in BDAG).1 Danker famously said that \u201cscholars\u2019 tasks are not for sissies.\u201d He was right, and I\u2019m grateful he was willing to say what needed to be said.
\nThe truth about serious Bible study is that it isn\u2019t easy. It takes sustained time and effort, often measured in days, weeks, and months, to really grasp what a passage means (or probably means) and why. If Bible study doesn\u2019t seem like work to you, you aren\u2019t really doing it.
\nI realize that saying serious Bible study is work takes the pleasure out of it for some people. But presuming that you have to choose between enjoying the study of Scripture and attaining a more advanced grasp of it is a fallacy. People who are really good at anything or have a deep comprehension of a subject enjoy their mastery because they put in the work. Whether it\u2019s mastering an instrument, becoming a chef, or fielding countless ground balls in practice, people at the top of any given field only reached that station after thousands of hours of effort. People who make those sorts of sacrifices when it comes to the study of Scripture have counted the cost. They decided that the exertion wasn\u2019t going to deter them. They weren\u2019t sissies.
\nDo you really want to know more about Scripture than satisfies most? Do you really want a deep comprehension of this thing we call the word of God? If you do, here are some points of advice.<\/p>\n
The goal of Bible study isn\u2019t to get a spiritual buzz<\/p>\n
First, let\u2019s get the obvious out of the way. Any student of Scripture who really believes the Bible is God\u2019s message to humanity will be emotionally moved from time to time at the wonder of why and how God maintains a loving interest in us. That\u2019s normal for someone who really understands the spiritual implications of Scripture. So I\u2019m not suggesting emotional responses are antithetical to serious engagement with the Bible. What I am suggesting, though, is that if you\u2019re doing Bible study to feel a particular way, or get some spiritual high, then your Bible study is too self-focused.
\nNowhere are we taught in the Bible to \u201csearch the Scriptures to feel a certain way.\u201d Ultimately, Scripture is about God\u2014what he did, what he is doing, and what he will do\u2014not about you. You\u2019ll never appreciate God\u2019s story if your story\u2014and solving your problems\u2014is what you focus on when you study Scripture. Comprehending God\u2019s story can go a long way toward addressing your problems, but the reverse will never be true. Serious Bible study that transcends self-therapy is about mastering the inspired text. You either want that or you don\u2019t. If you do, you\u2019ll be willing to put in the time and be willing to constantly reevaluate your work and your thinking.<\/p>\n
Paying attention to detail and thinking clearly are not antithetical to loving Jesus<\/p>\n
Early in my own spiritual journey, I was consumed with knowing Scripture. I\u2019d ask questions, listen to answers, and then follow up with more questions. Sometimes it irritated people. I recall several instances in church or home Bible studies where I was scolded about obsessing over the Bible. After all, I was told, the real point of Bible study was learning about Jesus and how to follow him.
\nI disagreed then and I still do. The answer to why women who had their periods were considered unclean (Lev 15:19\u201324), or what the Urim and Thummim were (Exod 28:30), or why some English translations of John 5 don\u2019t include verse 4 in the chapter have nothing to do with Jesus. The fact that they\u2019re in the Bible means they\u2019re just as inspired as any passage that is about Jesus.
\nBible study is about learning what this thing we say is inspired actually means. Knowing what all its parts mean will give us a deeper appreciation for the salvation history of God\u2019s people, and the character of God. Jesus is the core component of all that, but there\u2019s a lot more to those things than the story of his life, death, and resurrection; his parables; and the Sermon on the Mount. If that was all God wanted us to know, he\u2019d have given us only the four gospels. It\u2019s pretty evident he had more in mind.<\/p>\n
The Spirit\u2019s guidance wasn\u2019t intended to serve as a cheat sheet<\/p>\n
If you\u2019ve watched a baseball or football game on American television at some point, you no doubt have seen players either ask God for success or thank him for it. Athletes today regularly do things like point to the heavens after crossing home plate or finding themselves in the end zone. Some will bow in a short prayer. It\u2019s a nice sentiment and, for many, a testimony that transcends a token gesture.
\nBut let\u2019s be honest. Unless that football player gets in shape and memorizes the playbook, all the pointing to heaven in the world isn\u2019t going to lead to success. You can say a short prayer on the mound or in the batter\u2019s box, but unless you can hit the curveball, you\u2019re going to fail\u2014perhaps spectacularly.
\nIt\u2019s the same in Bible study. All too often people who sincerely want the feeling of knowing Scripture aren\u2019t willing to put in the time it takes to get there. Instead, they\u2019ll take short cuts and then expect the Spirit to take up the slack. The assumption seems to be that the promise of the Spirit to guide us into truth means he\u2019ll excuse a lack of effort and give us the answers we need. The third person of the Trinity isn\u2019t the boy sitting next to you in high school that lets you cheat off his exam.
\nRather than substitute the Spirit for personal effort, ask the Spirit for insight to expose flawed thinking (your own and that of whomever you\u2019re reading) when you\u2019re engaged in Bible study. The more of God\u2019s word you\u2019ve devoted attention to, the more the Spirit has to work with.<\/p>\n
2<\/p>\n
Getting Serious\u2014and Being Honest\u2014about Interpreting the Bible in Context<\/p>\n
Anyone interested in Bible study, from the new believer to the biblical scholar, has heard (and maybe even said) that if you want to correctly interpret the Bible, you have to interpret it in context. I\u2019m certainly not going to disagree. But I have a question: What does that mean? Put another way, just what context are we talking about?
\nThere are many contexts to which an interpreter needs to pay attention.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Historical context situates a passage in a specific time period against the backdrop of certain events.
\n\u2022 Cultural context concerns the way people lived and how they thought about their lives and their world.
\n\u2022 Literary context focuses on how a given piece of biblical literature conforms (or not) to how the same type of literature was written during biblical times.<\/p>\n
All of these are important\u2014but they only flirt with the heart of the matter. There\u2019s a pretty clear element to this \u201ccontext talk\u201d that we\u2019re missing. It\u2019s time to get a firm grasp on something obvious. Believe it or not, it took years of study before I had it fixed in my head and my heart.<\/p>\n
The Bible\u2019s True Context<\/p>\n
As Christians, whether consciously or otherwise, we\u2019ve been trained to think that the history of Christianity is the true context for interpreting the Bible. It isn\u2019t. That might be hard to hear, but Christian history and Christian thought is not the context of the biblical writers, and so it cannot be the correct context for interpreting what they wrote.
\nThe proper context for interpreting the Bible is not the church fathers. They lived a thousand years or more after most of the Old Testament was written. Less than a half dozen of them could read Hebrew. The New Testament period was a century or more removed from important early theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian; Augustine, arguably the most famous early church figure, lived three hundred years after the conversion of Paul.1 That\u2019s more time than has elapsed since the founding of the United States. Also, many church fathers worked primarily with the Old Testament translated into Greek, Latin, or Syriac versions, so a good bit of their exegesis is translation-driven. Further, they were often responding to the intellectual issues of their own day when they wrote about Scripture, not looking back to the biblical context.
\nThe farther down the timeline of history one moves, the greater the contextual gap becomes. The context for interpreting the biblical text is not the Catholic Church. It is not the rabbinic movements of Late Antiquity or the Middle Ages. It is not the Reformation\u2014the time of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or the Anabaptists. It is not the time of the Puritans. It is not evangelicalism in any of its flavors. It is not the modern world at all.2
\nSo what is the proper context for interpreting the Bible? Here\u2019s the transparently obvious truth I was talking about: the proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers\u2014the context that produced the Bible. Every other context is alien or at least secondary.<\/p>\n
Bridging the Context Gap<\/p>\n
The biblical text was produced by people living in the ancient Near East and around the Mediterranean between the second millennium BC and the first century AD. To understand how biblical writers thought, we need to tap into that context. We need to get the worldview of the ancient world, shared by the biblical writers, into our heads.
\nAs certain as this observation is, there is a pervasive tendency in the believing Church to filter the Bible through creeds, confessions, and denominational preferences. That\u2019s not a bad thing. It\u2019s a human thing. Creeds are useful for distilling important points of theology. But they are far from the whole counsel of God, and even farther from the biblical world. This is something to be aware of at all times.
\nLest I be misunderstood, I\u2019m not arguing that we should ignore our Christian forefathers. I\u2019m also not saying that we\u2019re smarter. They were prodigious intellects. The problem isn\u2019t their brain power\u2014it\u2019s that they were simply too removed from the world of the biblical writers and had little chance of bridging that gap.
\nIt might sound odd, but we\u2019re actually in a better position than any of our spiritual forefathers in that respect. We live at a time when the languages of the major civilizations that flourished during the lifetimes of the biblical writers have been deciphered. We can tap into the intellectual and cultural output of those civilizations. That output is enormous\u2014millions of words. We can recover the worldview context (their \u201ccognitive framework\u201d in scholar-speak) of the biblical writers as never before. The same is true of the New Testament writers because they inherited what had come before them and were part of a first century world two thousand years removed from us.
\nThink about it. How would anyone living a thousand years from now understand something you wrote unless they could get inside your head and see the world as you do? They\u2019d need your frame of reference. They\u2019d need to know what was going on in the wider world that potentially concerned, angered, encouraged, or depressed you. They\u2019d need to understand the pop culture of your day to be able to parse why you\u2019re using this word and not that one, or to properly process an expression. There\u2019s no way to do that unless they recover your frame of reference. That is what it means to interpret in context.
\nI know firsthand this is a hard lesson. It isn\u2019t easy to put the biblical context ahead of our traditions. But if we don\u2019t do that, we ought to stop talking about how important it is to interpret the Bible in context lest we be hypocrites. I can honestly say that the day I decided to commit myself to framing my study of Scripture in the context of the biblical world instead of any modern substitute was a day of liberation. It\u2019s what put me on a path to reading the Bible again\u2014for the first time. You can do that, too. Don\u2019t believe me? Stay tuned.<\/p>\n
3<\/p>\n
Sincerity and the Supernatural<\/p>\n
In the previous article, I noted that the right context for interpreting the Bible accurately isn\u2019t the history of Christianity in any of its creedal distillations or denominational forms. But I went even further\u2014I said that the biblical context isn\u2019t any modern world context, period. The right context for understanding the Bible is the context that produced the Bible. That seems simple, but experience has taught me that commitment to this patently obvious truth isn\u2019t easy.
\nThe biblical context includes its supernaturalism. The biblical writers believed in an active, animate spiritual world. That world was home to a lot more than the triune God, angels, Satan, and demons. It included other gods (i.e., the gods of the nations were not merely idols) and territorial spiritual beings that were not demons\u2014and were, in fact, superior to demons.1 It included what we think of as ghosts, who could appear visibly, and even physically, and communicate to the embodied living world of which they had once been a part (1 Sam 28:3\u201320). For the biblical writers, divine beings could eat, drink, fight, and produce offspring with humans (Gen 6:1\u20134; 18:1\u20138; 19:1\u201311; 32:22\u201332; Num 13:32\u201333; 2 Pet 2:4\u201310; Jude 6\u20137).<\/p>\n
Facing Up to the Bible\u2019s \u201cWeird\u201d Passages<\/p>\n
In the biblical worldview, the supernatural unseen realm had its own pecking order.2 Scripture never says that such intelligent beings always had the same agenda, either. The members of the heavenly host were also created in God\u2019s image (the plurality language of Gen 1:26 isn\u2019t about the Trinity), so they possess free will, the ability to make decisions. Their acts and attitudes are not programmed and predestined. They believe they can defeat the plans of God, or at least forestall them indefinitely, at great pain to him and great cost to humanity (eternal and otherwise).
\nLet\u2019s face it\u2014we just don\u2019t think like that. The above isn\u2019t the supernatural world of most Christian traditions. That doesn\u2019t matter if we\u2019re sincere about reading Scripture through the cognitive framework of its writers and original intended audience. But in many cases, especially in evangelical biblical scholarship, the supernatural thinking of the biblical writers has been something to explain away or avoid. I\u2019ve seen it hundreds of times over the course of twenty years of sustained focused study as a biblical scholar. There are many creative ways to explain away what the text plainly says in various \u201cweird\u201d passages. But understanding Scripture isn\u2019t about making it palatable or comfortable to modern readers. It\u2019s about discerning what the biblical writer believed and was seeking to communicate to readers who thought the same way.<\/p>\n
Are We Sincere about Biblical Authority?<\/p>\n
To be blunt, most Christians think themselves believers in the supernatural because they believe in the Trinity, Satan, angels, and demons. They profess Christ and believe in God\u2014and that\u2019s the extent of what they truly think is real in terms of the supernatural. They affirm what they need to affirm to call themselves Christians. The rest is too scary or weird or seems simply superstitious.
\nWhen it comes to the supernatural, the question for every Christian who says they believe in biblical inspiration and authority to ask themselves is simple: How much of what biblical characters and writers believed about the supernatural world do I believe? Put negatively: How much of what biblical characters and writers believed about the supernatural world do I feel comfortable dismissing as a modern person? The answer to these questions will tell you how serious you are about biblical authority on such matters.<\/p>\n
4<\/p>\n
Let the Bible Be What It Is<\/p>\n
As a biblical scholar, I\u2019m often asked for advice on how to interpret the Bible. I could refer people to tools (like Logos Bible Software) and techniques for analyzing the original languages, even for people dependent on English.1 But neither of those are my go-to answer. My own journey has convinced me there\u2019s one fundamental insight that, if faithfully observed, will help more than anything. It\u2019s the best piece of advice I can give you:<\/p>\n
Let the Bible be what it is.<\/p>\n
What do I mean? I\u2019m suggesting that the path to real biblical understanding requires that we don\u2019t make the Bible conform to our traditions, our prejudices, our personal crises, or our culture\u2019s intellectual battles. Yes, you\u2019ll find material in Scripture that will help you resolve personal difficulties and questions. But you must remember that, while the Bible was written for us, it wasn\u2019t written to us. What they wrote is still vital for our lives today, but we can only accurately discern the message if we let them speak as they spoke.
\nThis advice of course dovetails with my previous article about getting serious and being honest about the oft-repeated mantra \u201cthe Bible needs to be interpreted in context.\u201d That article was about recognizing all contexts\u2014including the history of Christianity\u2014that post-date the biblical world are foreign to the Bible. The right contexts for interpreting the Bible are those in which the Bible was written. You can\u2019t let the Bible be what it is if you\u2019re filtering it through a set of experiences and ideas (a \u201ccognitive framework\u201d) that would have been incomprehensible to the biblical writers.<\/p>\n
A Firm Grasp of the Obvious<\/p>\n
I know that, on the surface, what I\u2019m saying amounts to having a firm grasp of the obvious. But if it were easy to do\u2014and if it was the norm\u2014I\u2019d be writing about something else. It isn\u2019t and it hasn\u2019t been. But it certainly needs to be, at least if we don\u2019t want to be pretenders when it comes to respecting God\u2019s decision to produce Scripture when he did and through whom he chose.
\nMany illustrations come to mind of the importance of letting the Bible be what it is. The supernaturalist worldview I talked about before, which is the focus of my books The Unseen Realm and Supernatural, is one example.2 I\u2019ll return to that illustration later. I want to offer two others.
\nWhat about the pre-scientific cosmology of the Bible? I\u2019ve written about the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe in the Faithlife Study Bible.3 For the biblical writers, the earth was flat and round, supported by pillars (2 Sam 22:8) and surrounded by water (Gen 1:10); the water was held in place by the edges of the solid dome (\u201cexpanse\u201d; \u201cfirmament\u201d) that covered the earth (Gen 1:6; Prov 8:27\u201328). The people God chose to write about the fact that he created everything were not writing science because they couldn\u2019t\u2014and God, of course, knew that. Instead of pressing Genesis into a debate with Darwin or making it cryptically convey the truths of quantum physics, we should let it be what it is so it can accomplish the goals for which God inspired it\u2014to assert the fact of a Creator and our accountability to him. Rather than fight the critics on grounds they choose, we ought to insist that they explain why it makes any sense to criticize the Bible for not being what it wasn\u2019t intended to be. Following such absurd logic, perhaps we should expect them to criticize their dog for not being a cat or their son for not being a daughter. Their attack is patently absurd. But we endorse it when we make the Bible a modern science book instead of letting it be what it is\u2014what God intended.<\/p>\n
Truth That Transcends Culture<\/p>\n
The same problem persists when we try to deny that the Old Testament is patriarchal, or that parts of the Mosaic Law are biased against women. Some are because that was their culture. God didn\u2019t hand down a new culture for particular use in Scripture. He didn\u2019t demand that the writers he chose change their worldview before he\u2019d use them. The biblical material simply reflects the cultural attitudes of the people who wrote it.
\nAgain, all this is obvious\u2014but so many students of Scripture seem to approach such issues with the assumption that the Bible endorses a culture. God wasn\u2019t trying to endorse a culture from the first millennium BC or the first century AD for all time and in all places among all peoples. The reason ought to be apparent: God knew that the truths he wanted to get across through the biblical writers would transcend all cultures. Endorsing the prejudices the writers grew up with wasn\u2019t what God had in mind. Some parts of Scripture reveal culture simply as part of Israel\u2019s history. Others focus on behavior. With respect to the latter, God let the writers be who they were (i.e., he knew what he was getting when he chose them for their task), knowing they were capable of communicating timeless principles of conduct by means of their culture.
\nThe point is that letting the Bible be what it is not only helps us interpret Scripture accurately, but it has unexpected apologetic value. Taking Scripture on its own terms helps our focus and fends off distractions. When Scripture is rightly understood, its relevance will also be clear.<\/p>\n
5<\/p>\n
Bad Bible Interpretation Really Can Hurt People<\/p>\n
Anyone who teaches the word of God wants people excited about exploring Scripture. Ultimately, you want to turn listeners into competent students so that they can teach others. Along the way you have to deal with a lot of mistaken methods and conclusions. But so what? Hey\u2014having folks engaged in studying the Bible is more important than what they actually think they see in it. It\u2019s no concern that what most Christians think is \u201cdigging deep\u201d is barely scratching the surface of a passage or a topic. I\u2019ll take one misguided Bible student over a hundred straight-laced, passive, ecclesiastically-correct \u201cbelievers\u201d who never open a Bible anywhere else but church. At least those are the sorts of things I\u2019ve told myself for a long time. If I\u2019m honest, though, I\u2019ve had doubts about the wisdom of my position. I still do.
\nI\u2019ve run across a lot of bad Bible interpretation over the years. The problem isn\u2019t just the Internet. Granted, most of what passes for Bible teaching online could be aggregated under the banner of the \u201cP.T. Barnum School of the Bible.\u201d Unfortunately, a lot of poor thinking about Scripture has been published for popular consumption in the Church\u2014and consumed it is.
\nBut is it really harmful? Most of it isn\u2019t destructive. It won\u2019t do anything worse than keep those who buy into it ignorant and never able to move on to what they might really discover. And I\u2019ve seen a few instances where bad Bible interpretation has even been helpful. Because of the sorts of things I do\u2014especially writing paranormal fiction and maintaining two blogs on strange stuff that people believe\u2014I often encounter people with terribly misguided ideas about the Bible and its meaning. My offbeat \u201cministry\u201d produces all sorts of, shall we say, interesting email. Many people who contact me are Christians with genuine testimonies who\u2019ve had an unusual, frightening experience, or who\u2019ve spent too much time watching Ancient Aliens on the Fantasy (er, History) Channel. After their pastor or another friend who\u2019s ill-equipped to talk about what\u2019s causing their spiritual crisis tells them they need counseling (or worse), they have a decision to make: dump Christianity or find a way to process what\u2019s disturbing them using the Bible. I\u2019ve heard some of the most absurd Bible interpretation imaginable emerge from those sorts of struggles, but it often keeps people pursuing the Lord. So be it. In these circumstances, the last thing that\u2019s needed is a biblical scholar-bully destroying the interpretations that keep people in the faith. It\u2019s far better to maintain some relationship and build some trust. Maybe down the road we can have a talk about the fact that the Tower of Babel really wasn\u2019t a Stargate.<\/p>\n
Truly Destructive Bible Interpretation<\/p>\n
But some Bible interpretation is truly damaging\u2014and on a wide scale. For that sort of harm you needed professionals\u2014people who are supposed to know better because they have degrees or are in positions of spiritual leadership.
\nPerhaps the most egregious example is racism. Since the Age of Exploration (16th century) on through the eras of European empire and colonization, the racism that was an inextricable part of those centuries can be laid at the feet of the Church. Though it may make you flinch, it\u2019s true\u2014and I\u2019m not launching into some ludicrous left-wing propagandistic screed. It\u2019s pretty simple and, on its own terms, very understandable, though the coherence of how it all came about is no excuse.1
\nIn the sixteenth century, as Europeans ventured for the first time across the Atlantic and deepened their penetration east into the \u201cIndies,\u201d they encountered people and places that were not part of the biblical world. The place that would be called North America was not India or China, places that Europeans had been exposed to earlier. How did they get here? The Bible said nothing about them. Things didn\u2019t get any more comfortable in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries after the decipherment of the literary language of ancient India (Sanskrit). In a shocking twist, Sanskrit turned out to be from the same language family as classical Latin and Greek (Indo-European), the intellectual bedrock of European civilization. Sanskrit texts revealed a much longer human history than that of the Bible. And the physical evidence of a civilization much older than the patriarchs gave weight to that history.
\nThe cumulative impact of all these discoveries was that the Bible no longer looked like it had any claim on being special. To make the crisis even more acute, in 1859 Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species.2 In the wake of that bombshell, the alternative stories of creation in Sanskrit and the discoveries of people in the New World who shouldn\u2019t have been there (because the Bible didn\u2019t mention them) gave opponents of the Bible all the ammunition they needed. The Bible was not only wrong, but inferior. After all, it was such a Jewish book.
\nIt\u2019s no accident that this was the era that produced theories about how all races not European (especially blacks and Semitic peoples) were inferior to the \u201cmore pure\u201d Europeans. Defenders of the Bible couldn\u2019t argue there; instead they did their best to make the Bible support those things. The era produced \u201cscholarly\u201d defenses of how the sin of Ham produced the black peoples, or how Cain\u2019s wife proved there were co-Adamic races in antiquity, inferior to Adam, who wasn\u2019t Jewish by the way, or that Jesus wasn\u2019t really a Jew but an Aryan, a Sanskrit term for the high born. Other interpretive leaps were used to justify older suspicions of Jews as Christ killers whose disinheritance by God had subordinated them to the civilization that had embraced Christianity\u2014the Europeans. But at least the Bible wasn\u2019t left behind in its \u201caccurate\u201d understanding of history. It still deserved its high status. And so the Bible was \u201csaved\u201d through horrific Bible interpretation. And we\u2019re still living with the results since this was all brought to American shores.
\nSo yes, sometimes bad Bible interpretation is truly destructive\u2014with effects lasting generations. This is yet another illustration why we need to get serious about interpreting the Bible in its own context, not against the backdrop of our own modern questions. The tragic baptism of racism was completely unnecessary. But there it is.<\/p>\n
6<\/p>\n
Unyielding Literalism: You Reap What You Sow<\/p>\n
Now we\u2019ve established that bad Bible interpretation really can be harmful. I mentioned earlier that I\u2019m exposed to more than my fair share of interpretive incoherence because I\u2019m known on the Internet for my paranormal fiction and for blogging on strange things people believe about the Bible and the ancient world. But that earlier article was about how historical circumstances produced challenges to biblical veracity and authority. Unfortunately, sometimes Bible believers have no one but themselves to blame for making the content of Scripture seem utterly absurd.
\nRecently, I\u2019ve had the dispiriting experience of fielding several emails asking me to inject some sanity into the new flat earth movement circulating among Christians. Yes\u2014you read that correctly: there\u2019s a growing cadre of \u201cBible teachers\u201d busily contending for the faith by teaching their followers (in church and online) that the Bible requires us to believe the earth is flat. This idea is related to another \u201cBible fact\u201d that is experiencing a revival: geocentrism, the idea that the earth is the center of our solar system, not the sun.1 \u201cBiblical geocentrism\u201d is based on the hyper-literal interpretation of verses like Psalm 104:5 (the sun and other planets must revolve around the earth since the earth cannot be moved).
\nNow, I know what you\u2019re thinking. What about space travel? Satellites sent into orbit that enable (dare I say) global communication? Airline flight patterns that use the curvature of the earth to cheat passengers out of extra frequent flyer miles (okay, maybe that isn\u2019t the carrier\u2019s motivation)? The truth is these are conspiracies contrived by people who hate the Bible. That\u2019s what science does \u2026 make up lies to cover up the fact that the Bible has the truth about how God created the earth. Sigh.<\/p>\n
Sanctified Brainwashing<\/p>\n
By what process of hermeneutical alchemy is all this possible? It\u2019s actually pretty simple: hyper-literalism. The sanctified flat-earthers have blindly presumed that the Bible\u2019s pre-scientific cosmology\u2014which is well known to Old Testament scholars\u2014has to be taken as a literal reality that trumps basic science (and human experience) or else biblical inspiration and inerrancy have to be rejected. This thinking is deeply flawed.
\nThe Bible\u2019s pre-scientific cosmology is what it is because God decided to prompt people who lived in a pre-scientific age to produce the books of the Bible, not because the earth is really round and flat with a solid dome over it.2 The flat-earthers and geocentrists sort of skip the dome part, unless they deny the lunar landings and the existence of the international space station. God didn\u2019t ask the people he picked to be something they weren\u2019t (modern scientists who understood celestial mechanics). He prompted them via his Spirit to tell some important truths: all we know was created by God\u2014including us\u2014and so we are accountable to him and dependent on him for life beyond this terrestrial existence. The biblical writers didn\u2019t need a modern science education to communicate, through their own worldview frame of reference and symbolic metaphors well known throughout the ancient world (their cultural context), who the true Creator was and why it mattered. That\u2019s taking the Bible for what it is and interpreting it in light of its own context, not ours. But too many Christians have been brainwashed into thinking that absolute, uncompromising literalism is a synonym for believing in inspiration and inerrancy. It isn\u2019t\u2014and never has been throughout the entire history of believing Christianity.<\/p>\n
Literalism as Idolatry<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve been a Christian for 35 years. For most of that time my church context has been either fundamentalism (my early years as a believer) or, what I\u2019ll call for convenience, popular evangelicalism that divorces itself from a reformed or creedal heritage. Both of those Christian sub-cultures exalt the \u201cliteral\u201d interpretation of the Bible, especially when it comes to creation and prophecy. Granted, the notion that the Bible teaches a flat earth isn\u2019t common to those contexts. But over-emphasis on biblical literalism has a cost. Literalism can become idolatry. During my teaching career I\u2019ve had students espouse a number of preposterous Bible teachings, among them:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Babies are really stored in a man\u2019s sperm (the Hebrew word for \u201cseed\u201d [zr\u02bf] refers to children and is never used of women); genetics is a lie (Gen 13:16; zr\u02bf = offspring)
\n\u2022 The Bible teaches teleportation (Acts 8:39\u201340)
\n\u2022 Flying saucers are piloted by angels (Ezek 1; Zech 5:5\u20138)
\n\u2022 Animals could talk in Eden (Gen 3)<\/p>\n
I could extend the list, but I think you get the point. But here\u2019s a point that\u2019s less obvious that you might miss: when we unquestioningly teach Bible students that literalness is next to godliness, we teach them to think poorly. Don\u2019t believe me? Read on.<\/p>\n
What Does \u201cLiteral\u201d Mean Anyway?<\/p>\n
Many readers have heard the old bromide in defense of literal Bible interpretation: \u201cWhen the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.\u201d It\u2019s pithy. If you don\u2019t think too much about it, it might even sound like it makes sense. It\u2019s actually not helpful.
\nIt might sound odd, but \u201cliteral interpretation\u201d needs to be interpreted. The meaning is far from clear. Consider the word \u201cwater.\u201d What does it \u201cliterally\u201d mean? Is it a noun or a verb? In either case, what exactly is its \u201cplain sense\u201d? Here are some options. As a noun, \u201cwater\u201d can be:<\/p>\n
\u2022 a chemical compound (H2O)
\n\u2022 a liquid beverage (\u201cI\u2019d like some water\u201d)
\n\u2022 a natural body of water (\u201clook at all that water\u201d), but which kind?
\n– an ocean
\n– a sea
\n– a lake
\n– a pond
\n– a river
\n– a stream
\n– a creek
\n– an inlet<\/p>\n
As a verb, \u201cwater\u201d can mean:<\/p>\n
\u2022 to irrigate (\u201cwater the fields\u201d)
\n\u2022 to provide hydration (\u201che watered the cattle\u201d)
\n\u2022 to salivate (\u201cmy mouth watered\u201d)
\n\u2022 to cry (\u201chis eyes watered\u201d)<\/p>\n
So which of the above is the \u201cliteral\u201d meaning? Which one is the \u201cplain\u201d meaning? That\u2019s the point. They\u2019re all plain. What distinguishes them is context and metaphor. Things get even more interesting when you move into metaphorical meanings for water\u2014and metaphorical meaning can be exactly what context requires. \u201cWater\u201d can be used metaphorically for a life source, purification, transformation, motion, or danger. The metaphors work because of the physical properties of water\u2014and still describe real things. Non-literal doesn\u2019t mean \u201cnot real.\u201d And as the saga of sanctified geocentrism tells us, devotion to literalism won\u2019t necessarily produce accurate\u2014or even coherent\u2014Bible interpretation.<\/p>\n
7<\/p>\n
Everything in the Bible Isn\u2019t about Jesus<\/p>\n
If you\u2019ve been a Christian for very long or were raised in a Christian church, chances are that you\u2019ve heard that the Bible is really all about Jesus. That clich\u00e9 has some truth to it, but it\u2019s misleading.
\nThe truth is that there\u2019s a lot in the Bible that isn\u2019t about Jesus. Procedures for diagnosing and treating leprosy (Lev 13:1\u201314:57) aren\u2019t about Jesus. Laws forbidding people who\u2019ve had sex or lost blood (Lev 15) from entering sacred space aren\u2019t about Jesus. The spiritual, social, and moral corruption in the days of the judges (Judg 17\u201321) wasn\u2019t put in the Bible to tell us about Jesus. The Tower of Babel incident (Gen 11:1\u20139) doesn\u2019t point to Jesus. When Ezra commanded Jews who\u2019d returned from exile to divorce the Gentile women they\u2019d married (Ezra 9\u201310), he wasn\u2019t foreshadowing anything about Jesus.
\nThe point is straightforward: No Israelite would have thought of a messianic deliverer when reading these or many other passages. No New Testament writer alludes to them and many other portions of Scripture to explain who Jesus was or what he said.<\/p>\n
Why Is This Idea So Prevalent?<\/p>\n
In my experience, the prevailing motivation seems to be to encourage people to read their Bible. That\u2019s a good incentive. But I\u2019ve also come across other factors, namely that it serves as an excuse to avoid the hard work of figuring out what\u2019s really going on in many passages. People are taught to extrapolate what they read to some point of connection with the life and ministry of Jesus\u2014no matter how foreign to Jesus the passage appears. Imagination isn\u2019t a sound hermeneutic. Not only does it lack boundaries that prevent very flawed interpretations (and even heresies), but it makes Scripture serve our ability to be clever. Recognizing the inaccuracy of this assumption is important for some simple but important reasons.
\nFirst, if we filter passages that aren\u2019t about Jesus through something Jesus did and said, we won\u2019t have any hope of understanding what those passages were actually about. Nothing in Scripture is there accidentally. The Bible is an intelligent creation. Our task as those with a high view of Scripture is to discern why God wanted a given passage in the Bible in the first place.
\nSecond, the assumption can lead to minimizing or ignoring passages in which we can\u2019t clearly see Jesus. Since Jesus is central to God\u2019s sovereign plan of salvation, passages that don\u2019t add some detail about his teachings or the gospel story are considered peripheral or optional. Why bother spending serious time in a passage that \u201cdoesn\u2019t matter\u201d for having eternal life? Giving us the Bible as we have it was a providential, intentional decision on God\u2019s part. We either believe that\u2019s true and act accordingly (i.e., studying the whole counsel of God), or we\u2019ll act as though God\u2019s decision was random and unintelligent.
\nThird, becoming skilled at seeing Jesus in places where he isn\u2019t can discourage others from Bible study or lead others under one\u2019s spiritual charge to believe we have special (even authoritative) insight. When \u201cJesus stuff\u201d isn\u2019t obvious in a given passage and we\u2019ve been taught that it\u2019s somehow all about him, it\u2019s easy to just give up and let pastors and others tell us what they \u201csee.\u201d People shut off their brains when they are led to believe they can\u2019t think well about Scripture.
\nThe bottom line is that we can talk about the inspiration and authority of the Bible all day long and still fall prey to marginalizing its content with familiar clich\u00e9s that let us off the hook from doing the hard work of interpretation. While the drama of the biblical epic ultimately leads to Jesus, he isn\u2019t the ultimate focal point of every passage. That\u2019s homiletical flair, not the reality of the text.<\/p>\n
8<\/p>\n
Bible Reading and Bible Memorization Are Not Bible Study<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s get the obvious out of the way. You should read your Bible. You should also commit Scripture to memory. Both spiritual disciplines are axiomatic for Christians. But neither one is Bible study. I\u2019ll explain what I mean by taking one at a time.<\/p>\n
Reading Is Casual\u2014Study Isn\u2019t<\/p>\n
Reading the Bible is not where your engagement with the Bible ends. It\u2019s where it begins, or at least where it ought to begin. But over the course of my teaching career I\u2019ve been dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that many Christians think the act of reading Scripture is to be equated with studying Scripture. That simply isn\u2019t the case.
\nReading is casual, something done for pleasure. The motivation is personal enjoyment or enrichment, not mastery of the content. We read Scripture to be reminded of God\u2019s story in human history and the life lessons that story provides for our own lives and our relationship with God. Bible reading is inherently devotional and low maintenance.
\nBible study, on the other hand, involves concentration and exertion. We have an intuitive sense that study requires some sort of method or technique, and probably certain types of tools or aids. When we study the Bible we\u2019re asking questions, thinking about context, forming judgments, and looking for more information.
\nIt\u2019s not hard to illustrate the difference. Practically anyone could manage to make a cup of coffee, but they\u2019re not baristas. We know instinctively that both perform the same basic task, but what distinguishes the barista is a lot of time, effort, research, and experience in learned technique. It\u2019s the same with Bible study.
\nLet\u2019s say you and your friend were from the moon and didn\u2019t know what coffee was. You\u2019re only mildly interested in the topic, so you decide to look it up in a dictionary. You read that coffee is \u201ca popular beverage made from the roasted and pulverized seeds of a coffee plant.\u201d Good enough. You learned something. But your friend wants to know more\u2014a lot more. How is coffee made? What\u2019s the process? Is there more than one process? Is there more than one kind of coffee bean? Where are the beans grown? Does that make any difference in color, aroma, or flavor? How is coffee different than tea? If it\u2019s a popular beverage, how much is consumed? Does consumption vary by country? State? Gender? Age? IQ? Maybe your friend doesn\u2019t need to discover caffeine. But you get the point. Study requires passion and commitment; reading is much less intense.<\/p>\n
Memorization Isn\u2019t Thoughtful Analysis<\/p>\n
When I was freshman in Bible college, one of my professors was something of a zealot for Bible memorization. During the semester he had us memorize 150 verses\u2014with punctuation. I had an excellent short-term memory, so the feat wasn\u2019t that hard. While the discipline of that class was good for me, I have to be honest. I never learned what any of the verses meant in that class.
\nBeing able to recollect a verse with precision does not mean you understand it. You could memorize your tax forms, but that isn\u2019t going to provide answers to any confusion that may arise from what they say. It also won\u2019t turn you into an accountant or an IRS agent. It\u2019s the same with Scripture. I could memorize the entire Bible, but how does that nurture my comprehension?
\nReal Bible study demands analysis and thinking. For example, you could easily commit the following sentence to memory: \u201cNew Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group.\u201d Knowing what the words mean, though, takes some reflection (and a sense of humor).
\nMany things we read, especially in the Bible, aren\u2019t as easy to parse as this funny headline. Many Christians will have memorized Ephesians 2:8\u20139 (LEB):<\/p>\n
For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast.<\/p>\n
How many of us have bothered to ask the obvious question: What is the gift of God in this verse? Is it grace? Faith? Both? Something else? How would we know? Memorizing these verses is a good idea, but understanding what they mean is even better.<\/p>\n
9<\/p>\n
Marxism and Biblical Theology Aren\u2019t Synonyms<\/p>\n
I\u2019m a biblical scholar by training, but what most people don\u2019t realize is that I\u2019m also a political junkie. My undergraduate degree is actually in History and Political Science. Since one of my graduate degrees is in history (albeit ancient history), I was able to teach western civilization at the college level to help support myself through graduate school. I\u2019ve also taught U.S. History at a local community college. But while my interest in political discourse is high, I also have to confess to being an American political atheist\u2014I don\u2019t put my faith in any political party. The answer to the nation\u2019s problems\u2014to those plaguing a beleaguered world\u2014is the kingdom of God, not a kingdom made by human hands, even American ones.
\nWhy am I telling you this? It\u2019s to make the point that, though my PhD is in biblical studies, I\u2019m not a newbie when it comes to political theory. My interests intersect in an area of Christian thinking that is becoming all too trendy: the notion that the New Testament supports Marxism.
\nThis thought is hermeneutically inept for a number of reasons. It shows a fundamentally flawed biblical theology of poverty and care for the poor, conflates the gospel with socioeconomic concerns, ignores overt anti-Marxist statements by Jesus and the apostles, and misrepresents communist political theory. In short, it manifests ignorance on multiple fronts.<\/p>\n
The Old Testament<\/p>\n
The Old Testament makes certain elements of any discussion of our topic pretty clear.1 Several biblical figures of high spiritual character have considerable wealth. The most obvious example is likely Abraham (Gen 24:34\u201335). Two of the Ten Commandments presuppose private property and criminalize its theft (Exod 20:15; Deut 5:21). Wealth is the fruit of labor (Prov 10:4; 13:4). Inherited wealth is also not condemned (Deut 21:16; Prov 19:14).
\nThe biblical world knew poverty all too well. The Old Testament has a wide range of words describing poverty and the poor. But what do these terms indicate about the status of the poor? That is, what kinds of poverty does the Old Testament describe? Poverty had various causes in the Bible. The most common were warfare (foreign invasion), famine and drought, laziness, and being victimized by the unscrupulous. Does the Bible tell us that being wealthy is inherently unjust, automatically leads to injustice, or necessarily causes injustice? Anyone spending some serious time in the biblical text will learn that the answer to this question is no. Wealth is not an inherent evil according to biblical theology. What God hates isn\u2019t wealth\u2014it\u2019s the abuse of the poor by those who, for example, extort them, manipulate them, or withhold legal justice from them (Isa 3:14\u201315; 32:7; Amos 2:6\u20137; 5:12; Jer 5:28).
\nThe question of context is also crucial. I would invite readers to read the short essay by Jon Levenson, \u201cPoverty and the State in Biblical Thought.\u201d2 Levenson is a Jewish biblical scholar. His article is important for helping us think about the relationship of the Israelite state to poverty as it\u2019s discussed in the Hebrew Bible. One of Levenson\u2019s insights is significant:<\/p>\n
The laws which protect the poor, then, are addressed to the individual and the clan, the local, highly organic unit of social organization. These laws are, thus, religious commandments, rather than state policy. They are obligations established by God and owed directly to the poor and not to the government as a mediator between rich and poor.3<\/p>\n
The crucial point here is that the biblical call to care for the poor is not one that calls for that care to come from the authority of a state with coercive power. It is a call to individuals who seek to please God.<\/p>\n
The New Testament<\/p>\n
Jesus and the apostles got their theology about poverty from the Hebrew Bible. While, in Jesus\u2019 words, there will always be poor (John 12:8)\u2014and so, unequal economic classes\u2014God doesn\u2019t disdain the poor. Instead, he is displeased when they are oppressed by the wealthy (e.g., Deut 24:14; Prov 14:31; Zech 7:10; James 2:6).
\nStill, some careless thinkers believe the New Testament endorses Marxism. Acts 2:42\u201345 is often used as a proof text for people who presume the New Testament teaches this.<\/p>\n
42 And they were devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayers.\u2026 44 And all who believed were in the same place, and had everything in common. 45 And they began selling their possessions and property, and distributing these things to all, to the degree that anyone had need. (LEB)<\/p>\n
One of Marxism\u2019s famous slogans\u2014\u201cFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his need\u201d\u2014seems to fit this passage in Acts 2. But that takes Marxism and Acts 2 out of context. Marxist interpreters of Acts 2 miss the obvious fact that everything we read in that passage was voluntary. There was no all-powerful state (or religious authority) demanding redistribution of income and wealth. In Acts 5 believers were voluntarily selling property and distributing the proceeds among the believers. Even when Ananias and his wife sinned by deceptively withholding part of a property sale, Peter scolded, \u201cAnd after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?\u201d There is no coercion in this picture.
\nActs 2 is also no justification for Marxist theory as an \u201capplication\u201d of the passage for another reason: it would contradict the teaching of Jesus. It was Jesus who called for the separation of the church and state, who spoke of the kingdom of heaven as distinct from the state (Matt 22:21).<\/p>\n
Food for Thought<\/p>\n
In my experience, Christians who get warm, fuzzy feelings about Marxism have a genuine concern for the poor, but then they filter the New Testament through a very skewed understanding of both the Bible and the philosophy of Karl Marx. This post is about the former error, but the latter is just as readily apparent to anyone who has read Marx or Friedrich Engels, Marx\u2019s co-author for their classic statement, The Communist Manifesto (1848 political). Both were anti-Semitic. Their economic theory was designed to foment violent revolution, not care for the poor. It was Engels who said \u201cPolitical liberty is sham-liberty, the worst possible slavery.\u201d4
\nIt\u2019s easy to spot the glaring inconsistencies when people ignorant of biblical theology (including Christians) assume the Bible approves Marxism. But biblical theology doesn\u2019t endorse a lot of what we see in capitalism today either. Scripture is clear that wealth is not for hoarding or cultivating an aura of superiority. God wants wealth used to bless people. We as Christians violate Jesus\u2019 teaching about the separation of church and state when we forsake the care of the poor in tangible ways, presuming that the state will act on our behalf. In biblical theology, care for others is a personal spiritual duty, not something to be handed off to a secular authority. But that is basically what we do. We presume the state will act as the church should\u2014as we should. That theology is just as bad as pretending the Bible teaches Marxism.<\/p>\n
10<\/p>\n
How to (Mis)Interpret Prophecy<\/p>\n
There\u2019s no shortage of advice on how to interpret the Bible. One maxim that I\u2019ve already mentioned advises, \u201cWhen the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.\u201d1 I\u2019ve heard it quoted when it comes to biblical prophecy\u2014encouraging people to interpret literally, at face value. Although that sounds like good advice, some New Testament writers didn\u2019t get the memo.
\nOne of the most well-known examples of a non-literal reading appears in Acts 15 when the apostle James quotes Amos 9:11\u201312:<\/p>\n
Acts 15:16\u201318
\nAmos 9:11\u201312<\/p>\n
16 After this I will return, and I will rebuild
\n11 In that day I will raise up
\nthe tent of David that has fallen;
\nthe booth of David that is fallen
\nI will rebuild its ruins,
\nand repair its breaches,
\nand I will restore it,
\nand raise up its ruins
\nand rebuild it as in the days of old,
\n17 that
\n12 that they may possess
\nthe remnant of mankind3
\nthe remnant of Edom2
\nmay seek the Lord,
\nand all the Gentiles
\nand all the nations
\nwho are called by my name,
\nwho are called by my name,\u201d
\nsays the Lord,
\ndeclares the LORD
\nwho makes these things
\nwho does this.
\n18 known from of old.\u2019<\/p>\n
In the Amos prophecy, God promises to one day \u201craise up the booth of David and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it.\u201d Hearing the language of repair and rebuilding, we might think of a physical structure. \u201cBooth\u201d (sukkah) is a word used for tents at the Feast of Booths (Lev 23:34). Reading literally, we might think that the tabernacle, still used in David\u2019s day and brought into the temple after it was built by Solomon, might be the focus of the prophecy.
\nMany interpret Amos 9 this way, believing the passage describes the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem in the end times. The \u201cpossession\u201d of Edom and the nations who are destined to call the LORD their God would seem to fit that context.
\nBut Luke, the writer of Acts, doesn\u2019t interpret the passage that way. He doesn\u2019t take it \u201cplainly\u201d or literally. In Acts 15, he describes the fledgling church gathering in Jerusalem to hear that Paul and Barnabas had taken the gospel to Gentiles, who had embraced it. Peter and James came to their defense. To prove the momentous event had been prophesied in the Old Testament, James quoted Amos 9:11\u201312. James (and the writer, Luke) understood the language of building and repairing to refer to a person\u2014the resurrected Jesus, the son of David. They also don\u2019t refer to \u201cthe remnant of Edom\u201d but instead \u201cthe remnant of mankind.\u201d
\nJames and Luke used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Hebrew version of the prophecy had \u201cEdom\u201d (Hebrew \u02beedom), but the Septuagint reads \u201cmankind\u201d (reading the Hebrew as \u02beadam). The words share the same consonants but are otherwise entirely different.
\nThe switch to \u201cmankind\u201d fits the occasion of this meeting as well as the ministry of Paul and Barnabas. The Gentiles\u2014all the nations of mankind, not just Israel\u2014are now accepting the gospel. But that is not how the passage read in Hebrew. The interpretation by James and Luke is not a literal one, but an abstract or \u201cspiritual\u201d one, based on a different reading from a translation.
\nDid James and Luke misread the Bible, then? Not necessarily. The \u201cremnant of Edom\u201d could be considered an abstract reference to \u201cnon-elect\u201d people: Remember that the Edomites were descendants of Esau (Gen 36:1), who surrendered his birthright (Gen 25). Therefore, the non-literal translation of \u201cmankind\u201d in the Septuagint version of Amos 9:11 is within the realm of accurate meaning.
\nComparing these passages illustrates important lessons: Interpreting biblical prophecy cannot be distilled to a simple maxim, and everything cannot be taken literally. The New Testament shows us otherwise.<\/p>\n
Part Two<\/p>\n
11<\/p>\n
Did Yahweh Father Cain?<\/p>\n
Christians are often taught to interpret the Bible literally. In Part One, we looked at some of the problems that can come out of overemphasizing literal interpretation, but I should point out that most people who advocate literalism do so to prevent self-serving or idiosyncratic interpretations. If we interpret the text at face-value, so the idea goes, we\u2019ll more often than not be interpreting Scripture correctly. This approach\u2014though well-intentioned\u2014isn\u2019t always the best strategy, for several reasons. One is that the most straightforward reading can produce bizarre outcomes.
\nGenesis 4:1 is a case in point: \u201cNow Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, \u2018I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.\u2019 \u201d We might look at this verse and see nothing amiss, but the English translation is concealing a controversial problem. In Hebrew, Eve says, \u201cqanithi ish eth-YHWH.\u201d1 The English words \u201cthe help of\u201d were supplied by the translator of the ESV; they are not represented in the Hebrew text.
\nIn addition, the Hebrew verb qanah (the basic form of the word qanithi, translated \u201cI have gotten\u201d in the ESV) elsewhere can speak of creating. For example, it is the verb in the psalmist\u2019s famous statement about God\u2019s role in his birth: \u201cFor you formed (qanah) my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother\u2019s womb\u201d (Ps 139:13).
\nInsisting on the most straightforward reading of Genesis 4:1 easily produces an interpretation that has Eve saying, \u201cI have created (or procreated) a man with Yahweh.\u201d While this translation might sound very odd to our ears, certain cults and religious sects held the view that Yahweh had a sexual relationship with Eve.2 In one respect, such a translation is a gross misreading of the text, as the verse begins with a clear statement that Eve\u2019s sexual partner\u2014and therefore the father of Cain\u2014was Adam (\u201cAdam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain\u201d). But that doesn\u2019t resolve what the second half of the verse means to say.
\nThe verb qanah is not among the Hebrew words used most frequently to describe conception and childbirth (such as harah and yalad). In fact, this meaning for qanah is rare. Most Hebrew scholars believe that the writer chose to use qanah in Gen 4:1 to produce wordplay, as it sounds a lot like the Hebrew name for Cain: qayin. Consequently, the second part of the verse was not intended to describe Eve procreating with Yahweh, especially since the first part has just made clear that Adam was Cain\u2019s father.
\nStatements elsewhere in the Bible\u2014particularly several made by women who had difficulty bearing children\u2014confirm the problem with taking Gen 4:1 too literally. Sarah, who clearly was unable to have children because of her age (Gen 18:11\u201312), knew that Yahweh had enabled her to have Isaac (Gen 18:13\u201315; 21:6\u20137). Hannah credited Yahweh with the birth of Samuel after she had been barren for many years (1 Sam 1:19\u201320).
\nLike these other women, Eve\u2019s statement that she had \u201ccreated a man with the LORD\u201d\u2014after becoming pregnant by Adam\u2014is an idiomatic expression: She is crediting God for blessing her with the mystery of childbirth. Translations of Gen 4:1 like the ESV express this idea correctly. Eve believed that God had played a role in bringing Cain into the world.<\/p>\n
12<\/p>\n
All Your Genesis Commentaries Are 8-Track Tapes<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve all heard the old saying that certain things get better with age\u2014wine, cheese, common sense. Anyone who\u2019s watched Antiques Roadshow also knows that the longer you have something that there\u2019s a demand for\u2014real estate, investments, fine art, a popular car\u2014the more value it will accrue. Unfortunately, the reverse is true for many of the most popular tools for biblical study. They\u2019re often more like tech gear\u2014they get worse with age and sometimes become totally obsolete.
\nCommentaries are one of the tools that don\u2019t get better with the passage of time. The reasons are pretty simple. Biblical scholars are like experts in any field. They keep thinking and researching. The data of biblical studies increase and improve. Archaeology produces more discoveries of relevance. Computer technology makes ancient language analysis more thorough (and faster). Information becomes more accessible and searchable. It\u2019s no exaggeration to say that what scholars had access to 100 years ago is literally a fraction of what\u2019s available to you today using only a smartphone. In terms of what previous generations were capable of analyzing in a lifetime we can surpass with a few hours of effort.
\nI work for the world\u2019s leading Bible software company, so I\u2019m used to the staggering realities of the modern world for biblical studies. But the truth I\u2019m talking about today was brought home to me in a direct way only recently. My book The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible devotes a lot of space to a lot of weird passages. One of the strangest is Gen 6:1\u20134, the episode in the days of Noah where the \u201csons of God\u201d (called the \u201cWatchers\u201d in Jewish literature written during the time between the Testaments) transgress the boundary between heaven and earth in an illicit relationship with the \u201cdaughters of humankind.\u201d The act produced the Nephilim, who are the forebears of the giant clans encountered by Moses and Joshua (Num 13:32\u201333).1
\nThere have been many attempts to strip this passage of its supernatural elements in order to make it palatable to modern Bible students. Since this sort of material has been my academic focus for the past 15 years, I can tell you that all such attempts have significant flaws of exegesis and logical coherence. But the greatest flaw is that any view that humanizes the sons of God and denies the unusual nature of the Nephilim invariably violates the passage\u2019s original context and polemic meaning.
\nPrior to 2010, that assertion may have been contestable. That is no longer the case. Recent scholarly work on Mesopotamian literature associated with events before and after the great flood have produced clear, unambiguous, point-for-point parallels to what we read in Genesis 6:1\u20134. Those parallels demonstrate with no uncertainty that this biblical passage was specifically written to denigrate Mesopotamian ideas of the superiority of their gods and culture.
\nIn the Mesopotamian material, the divine beings who lived at the time of the flood were called apkallu. They cohabited with human women, producing a new generation of apkallu who were not only divine-human hybrids, but also giants. Mesopotamian religion saw these generations of apkallu as great sages. Their survival via human women before the annihilation of the flood preserved pre-flood divine knowledge that had been taught to men. This knowledge was preserved in Babylon, which explained (to the Mesopotamian cultures) why their culture was superior to all others. Rather than deny the supernatural context of the Mesopotamian material, Genesis hits it head-on. The apkallu were not saviors. They were undeserving rivals to Yahweh of Israel and deserved to die. After the flood the giant apkallu became enemies of God\u2019s people, the Israelites. Whether we realize it or not, Gen 6:1\u20134 reports the first salvo in the long war against Yahweh and his people. This strange passage that modern readers keep at arm\u2019s length has hooks into other biblical passages, including the New Testament.
\nThis new research comes from a thorough reexamination of the Sumerian and Akkadian flood epics. The insights were skillfully culled by cuneiform scholar Amar Annus in a 2010 journal article.2 Annus\u2019 article is the most current study on the Mesopotamian apkallu available anywhere in any form. It supersedes all preceding work on this subject.3 It deals a death blow to any nonsupernatural interpretation of Genesis 6:1\u20134.
\nWhat this means is that every commentary on Genesis you\u2019ve come to trust can no longer be trusted on this passage because it was written before this new, ground-breaking research. They\u2019re like 8-track tapes\u2014obsolete. The good news is that my book The Unseen Realm interacts with this new research at length. And there are a lot of issues like this one where I draw on recent research and provide a more up-to-date discussion than most commentaries. If you care about interpreting the Bible in its original context\u2014including the supernatural worldview of the biblical writers\u2014you should care about the latest insights from research on the ancient world.<\/p>\n
13<\/p>\n
What\u2019s in a Name?<\/p>\n
\u201cI am that I am\u201d\u2014God\u2019s response when Moses asks for his name is famous for both its simplicity and its mystery (Exod 3:14 LEB). What exactly does it mean?
\nIn Hebrew, God says ehyeh asher ehyeh (\u201cI am that I am\u201d). The verb form for \u201cI am\u201d is ehyeh. If you\u2019ve studied a language, you know that verbs\u2014action words\u2014have grammatical person and number. With most languages, \u201cnumber\u201d refers to singular or plural; \u201cperson\u201d refers to the subject of the verb. When I taught biblical languages, I would explain it this way: I am number one (first person). You are second fiddle (second person). Everyone else (he, she, or they) is a third party (third person).
\nIn this sentence, the name of God, ehyeh, is a first-person, singular form of the verb \u201cto be\u201d (hayah). It\u2019s a statement of self-existence\u2014and, therefore, a denial of being created by any higher power or force.
\nYet, the consonants used in ehyeh are not exactly the same as those found in the name of God in thousands of other places in the Hebrew Old Testament: y-h-w-h. These four consonants are known as the sacred Tetragrammaton (meaning \u201cfour letters\u201d). Out of reverence, Israelites didn\u2019t pronounce the name. In writing, they eventually provided the consonants with vowels for a different Hebrew word\u2014adonay or \u201cLord.\u201d1 English translations represent the sacred name with \u201cLORD\u201d in small capital letters. That actually isn\u2019t a translation of the four consonants, though. It\u2019s a reverential substitute for a word that was not spoken.
\nIf ehyeh is the name God gives in Exodus 3:14, where does yhwh come from? For an answer, we need to take a closer look at the Hebrew\u2019s meaning and the forms it can take. Ehyeh and yhwh come from the same verb, hayah (meaning \u201cto be\u201d). Ehyeh is the first-person form of the verb and is typically translated as \u201cI am.\u201d That same root word also appears as hawah, a standard spelling in texts older than the earliest manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament.2 The name yhwh is the third-person form of hawah.
\nAll this suggests that yhwh should be pronounced yihweh, which would mean \u201che is\u201d (since it\u2019s in the third person). But that\u2019s problematic. Elsewhere in the Bible, the divine name is shortened to two consonants (yh; e.g., Exod 15:2), and Hebrew scribes always added an \u201ca\u201d vowel to it (yah). So if the first half of the name is yah, it wouldn\u2019t seem yihweh is the right option. That\u2019s why scholars prefer yahweh as the spelling of the divine name. But, as you might guess, that\u2019s disputed, too.
\nTo unravel the debate over the mystery behind God\u2019s name, we have to dive deeper into the original language. Stick with me here\u2014even if you don\u2019t know Hebrew, the possibilities present intriguing options for interpretation.
\nThe most straightforward explanation is a technical one: Yahweh is a third-person form in what\u2019s called the imperfect conjugation of the Hiphil stem. It sounds complicated, but this conjugation basically accounts for the added \u201cy\u201d and the yah spelling of the shorter name. Since the Hiphil stem is used to indicate the subject\u2019s role as a cause for something else, the meaning of the divine name yahweh would be something like \u201che causes to be\u201d or \u201che brings into existence.\u201d This would denote God as the one who is creator.
\nBut here\u2019s the rub: There are no examples of this form of the verb hayah\/hawah in all known ancient Hebrew writing samples except for the Old Testament. For that reason, some scholars don\u2019t like this explanation.3 They want at least one parallel. For several linguistic reasons, they prefer to understand y-h-w-h simply as \u201che is\u201d (yihweh) without regard to the shorter yah spelling.4
\nIn the end, both possibilities are workable. One (yihweh) maintains the idea that God is uncreated; he just is. The other (yahweh) proposes that the God of Israel is the one who brings all things into being. He is and he is the creator. Both are powerful theological statements.<\/p>\n
14<\/p>\n
Lost at Sea<\/p>\n
Israel\u2019s crossing of the Red Sea in Exod 14 has been spectacularly depicted several times for television and movies. But anyone who retraces the steps of Moses and the Israelites to discover where the crossing occurred finds a significant problem: The \u201cRed Sea\u201d in Israel\u2019s itinerary most likely wasn\u2019t what we think of as the Red Sea.
\nThe problem originates with the biblical Hebrew phrase yam suph, usually rendered as \u201cRed Sea\u201d in English translations.1 The phrase actually means \u201csea of reeds\u201d or \u201creed sea.\u201d The word yam refers to a body of water which, of course, could include something as large as a sea. However, suph does not mean \u201cred\u201d; that word in Hebrew is \u02beadom (used in Gen 25:30) or \u02beadmoni (used in Gen 25:25).
\nSo the Israelites crossed \u201cthe sea of reeds,\u201d which refers to a body of water with reeds in it, most likely papyrus reeds. That description could not apply to the Red Sea since very few parts of the Red Sea are suitable for reeds to grow due to the salt content of the water. The phrase yam suph further complicates the identification of the crossing, since it is used in the Bible for watery locations in or near both prongs of the Red Sea. Some verses describe the eastern prong, the Gulf of Aqabah (1 Kgs 9:26; Exod 23:31; Num 21:4; Judg 11:16), but Num 33:8\u201310 describes the yam suph as being geographically oriented to the western prong of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Suez, a few days\u2019 journey from Egypt. This passage also has the Israelites passing \u201cthrough the midst of the sea (yam)\u201d before they ever get to the yam suph (\u201cRed Sea\u201d):<\/p>\n
And they set out from before Hahiroth and passed through the midst of the sea [yam] into the wilderness, and they went a three days\u2019 journey in the wilderness of Etham and camped at Marah. And they set out from Marah and came to Elim; at Elim there were twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees, and they camped there. And they set out from Elim and camped by the Red Sea (yam suph).2<\/p>\n
It\u2019s possible that when the Israelites emerged from Egypt that they crossed a smaller body of water adjacent to the Red Sea\u2014possibly one of the Bitter Lakes or Lake Timsah\u2014rather than the Red Sea itself. But there\u2019s another option. Since biblical Hebrew words were originally written without vowels, the phrase yam suph could be read as yam soph. The odd-sounding result would be \u201cthe sea of the end\u201d or \u201cthe sea of extinction\u201d\u2014a phrase that refers to an ancient cosmological notion that the world was flat and surrounded by a water boundary. In this view, the Israelites would have thought they were approaching the end of the world, venturing out into the desert wilderness and straight into the primeval waters where no one could live.3
\nThis view is mythic in tone, but it does not preclude a miraculous historical event. Israelites who believed they were headed to the edge of the world\u2014into the chaotic sea where none could survive\u2014would have interpreted God\u2019s deliverance as an astonishing act of divine power. To land safely on the other side of death\u2019s realm would be miraculous.
\nAlthough we can\u2019t determine the precise location of the crossing, the various possibilities in no way rule out God\u2019s providential intervention on behalf of His people.<\/p>\n
15<\/p>\n
The Slave before \u201cElohim\u201d in Exodus 21:1\u20136<\/p>\n
Exodus 21:1\u20136 describes the potential situation in which a household slave desires to remain with his master rather than go free under the Israelite law mandating release each sabbatical (seventh) year.<\/p>\n
1 \u201cNow these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master\u2019s, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, \u2018I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,\u2019 6 then his master shall bring him to God [elohim], and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.<\/p>\n
The Hebrew word translated \u201cGod\u201d in verse 6 is elohim. While elohim is plural in its formation, its meaning in the Old Testament is usually singular, and it frequently refers to the God of Israel. The simplest reading here is thus that elohim is singular and points to the God of Israel, and the two Israelites perform the brief ceremony \u201cin the sight of God,\u201d so to speak, similar to a modern wedding in which the minister notes that everyone has been gathered \u201cin the sight of God\u201d to witness the couple\u2019s joining in marriage.
\nHowever, some argue that elohim here is plural in meaning as well in order to find scriptural warrant for the idea that Israel\u2019s elders and judges were present at the ceremony and thus that those men could have been called elohim. They then apply this proof text to Psalm 82, arguing that the elohim of Yahweh\u2019s council, mentioned in Ps 82:1, are really men, not divine beings. However, neither judges nor elders are found in Exod 21, and the Old Testament never uses the term elohim for human leaders anywhere else. Many presume that Exod 18 refers to the elders as elohim, but the text never makes that equation. Elohim there refers, as usual, to God. A comparison of Exod 21:1\u20136 with its parallel in Deut 15:12\u201318 further weakens this argument.
\nAs noted above, elohim in Exod 21:6 could quite coherently refer to the singular \u201cGod\u201d\u2014but not to a group of humans. However, a comparison with Deut 15:12\u201318 raises the possibility that Exod 21:6 refers to a group of divine beings (\u201cgods\u201d).<\/p>\n
12 If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. 16 But if he says to you, \u201cI will not go out from you,\u201d because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, 17 then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. And to your female slave you shall do the same. 18 It shall not seem hard to you when you let him go free from you, for at half the cost of a hired servant he has served you six years. So the LORD your God will bless you in all that you do.<\/p>\n
The procedure in Exodus and Deuteronomy is the same, but the word elohim does not appear in Deuteronomy. If elohim referred to the God of Israel, there would be no logical reason for its removal from the law. (The same would be true if it referred to humans.) The only coherent rationale is that the writer (or a later editor) of Deuteronomy somehow knew that elohim referred to other divine beings (\u201cgods\u201d plural). Deuteronomy is famous for its strict monotheism (e.g., Deut 4:35, 39) and its commitment to the centralization of worship (Deut 12).
\nThe entire book, in fact, may have been written after the time of Moses, during or near the reign of Josiah, in the seventh century BC. Josiah is noted in Scripture for his great revival of Yahweh worship, which included the removal of idols and other religious objects that had caused the Israelites to worship other gods (2 Kgs 22\u201323). While arguing that the whole book of Deuteronomy is post-Mosaic and that it was written exclusively in the seventh century BC is extreme and problematic, it does seem plausible that scribes zealous to preserve Israel\u2019s montheism could have been so concerned that Israelites might interpret elohim here as plural and thus entertain the idea of other gods that they simply removed the word. This seems unnecessary, even if the reference was plural, since the Old Testament assumes the existence of other gods (elohim) inferior to Yahweh (e.g., Deut 32:17; Ps 82:1). The scribe nevertheless took no chances.
\nOne question remains: If the reference in Exod 21:6 is indeed plural, what \u201cgods\u201d does this Israelite law refer to? The most likely answer is teraphim, which were household figurines, likely of one\u2019s deceased ancestors. In Genesis 31, Rachel takes her father Laban\u2019s teraphim when fleeing Haran with Jacob (Gen 31:19, 34\u201345). David also apparently had teraphim in his house (1 Sam 19:13, 16). In fact, the authors of the Hebrew Bible (along with other ancient Near Eastern cultures) considered the disembodied human dead to be divine beings (see the use of elohim in 1 Sam 28:13), and teraphim represented those \u201cgods\u201d (elohim)\u2014the family\u2019s ancestors. The existence of teraphim may point to ancestor worship, but it is unclear what would constitute worship. Teraphim may have served a similar purpose to modern remembrances of the dead today. Bereaved people leave flowers or other items of intimate connection at gravesides, presuming the dead are appreciative\u2014that a connection between living and the dead remains. When others adorn their houses with photographs of deceased loved ones, it helps them remember them. The same can be said of teraphim. Leaving offerings at graves, or depositing them before teraphim, may simply have been the ancient Israelite equivalent of contemporary expressions of grief or respect.
\nTherefore, when a slave wanted to join the household out of love for his master, as in Exod 21, it would have been entirely appropriate for him to appear before the household\u2019s ancestors (elohim). Failure to do this would have, in fact, been deeply disrespectful to the dead. The editor of Deuteronomy, though, feared that the term would be misunderstood, so he had to update the law for the times.<\/p>\n
16<\/p>\n
The Angel of Yahweh in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
The Angel of Yahweh (mal\u2019akh YHWH) or the Angel of the LORD is an important figure in the Old Testament. This angel is not like other angels, since the essence of Yahweh dwells within him. Thus writers in the Old Testament often depict him as a surrogate Yahweh or even interchange the Angel with Yahweh himself. On at least one occasion, Yahweh and the Angel (the \u201csecond Yahweh\u201d) appear together in the same narrative scene. The Angel of Yahweh thus anticipates an Israelite belief in a Godhead\u2014the view that God comprises more than one person, each of whom is identified as the presence of Yahweh. Jewish theologians prior to the New Testament era, observing these texts featuring the Angel and other \u201cdual Yahweh\u201d language, developed a theology of two Yahwehs (one visible, the other invisible spirit) or two powers in heaven. Jewish authorities declared this teaching a heresy after the second century AD.<\/p>\n
The Angel as Yahweh<\/p>\n
The account of the burning bush in Exod 3 is the most appropriate place to begin a discussion of the Angel of Yahweh:<\/p>\n
And Moses was a shepherd with the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the west of the desert, and he came to the mountain of God [elohim], to Horeb. 2 And the angel of Yahweh [mal\u2019akh YHWH] appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush, and he looked, and there was the bush burning with fire, but the bush was not being consumed. 3 And Moses said, \u201cLet me turn aside and see this great sight. Why does the bush not burn up?\u201d 4 And Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, and God [elohim] called to him from the midst of the bush, and he said, \u201cMoses, Moses.\u201d And he said, \u201cHere I am.\u201d 5 And he said, \u201cYou must not come near to here. Take off your sandals from on your feet, because the place on which you are standing, it is holy ground.\u201d 6 And he said, \u201cI am the God [elohim] of your father, the God [elohim] of Abraham, the God [elohim] of Isaac, and the God [elohim] of Jacob.\u201d And Moses hid his face because he was afraid of looking at God [elohim]. (Exod 3:1\u20136 LEB)<\/p>\n
God is not alone in the burning bush (compare Acts 7:30\u201335). According to the passage, the Angel and Yahweh are both clearly in the bush (Exod 3:2, 4). The Angel appears \u201cout of the midst of a bush\u201d; Yahweh calls to Moses \u201cout of the bush.\u201d This passage illustrates the close identification and potential interchange between Yahweh and his Angel.
\nAlthough it is much less familiar than the burning bush episode, Exod 23:20\u201323 is the most crucial passage in the Old Testament for understanding the identity of the Angel of Yahweh:<\/p>\n
Look, I am about to send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Be attentive to him and listen to his voice; do not rebel against him, because he will not forgive your transgression, for my name is in him. 22 But if you listen attentively to his voice and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and a foe to your foes. 23 When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, I will wipe them out. (LEB)<\/p>\n
This Angel has the authority to pardon or withhold pardon for sins, something only God can do. God also gives the Angel responsibility for bringing the Israelites to the Promised Land\u2014something for which the Angel later takes credit (Judg 2:1\u20133; compare Josh 5:13\u201315), though God himself also takes the same credit elsewhere (Josh 24:6\u20138; Jer 2:7; Amos 2:10). The Angel\u2019s authority and interchangeability with Yahweh as Israel\u2019s leader derive from the fact that Yahweh\u2019s \u201cname is in him\u201d (Exod 23:21).
\nThe \u201cname\u201d of Yahweh does not merely refer to the four consonants of God\u2019s preferred name for himself, YHWH (called the Tetragrammaton). Rather, it refers to Yahweh himself. Old Testament writers at times refer to God himself as \u201cthe Name,\u201d a practice still used by modern orthodox Jews. To avoid pronouncing the sacred consonants, these Jews substitute YHWH with the Hebrew ha-shem (\u201cthe Name\u201d). Old Testament writers, in fact, use the same sort of substitution, at times even portraying \u201cthe Name\u201d as a person or man (Isa 30:27\u201328; Ps 20:1, 7). That Yahweh can bring deliverance is a familiar idea, but four consonants do not protect the people of God\u2014God himself protects them.
\nThe book of Deuteronomy provides some helpful explanation to the \u201cName theology\u201d of the Old Testament. Deuteronomy frequently refers to Israel\u2019s worship of God at the place where Yahweh will \u201cput his name\u201d (Deut 12:4, 21) or \u201cmake his name dwell\u201d (Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11). According to these descriptions, there will come a day that Israel will not have a temple with YHWH inscribed on the door. Rather, Yahweh\u2019s Name is his very presence or essence, and Yahweh himself will dwell in that temple (see 1 Kings 8).
\nThese passages provide the necessary context for Exod 23:20\u201323. Yahweh himself dwells in the Angel of Yahweh. In effect, the Angel is Yahweh embodied in human form (compare Josh 5:13\u201315). Recalling that, according to Exod 23:23, the Angel of Yahweh brings Israel to the Promised Land and defeats its inhabitants, Deut 4:37\u201338 take on a new light:<\/p>\n
And because he loved your ancestors he chose their descendants after them. And he brought you forth from Egypt with his own presence, by his great strength, 38 to drive out nations greater and more numerous than you from before you, to bring you and to give to you their land as an inheritance, as it is this day. (LEB)<\/p>\n
This passage, taken with Exod 23 and others in which God himself brings Israel into the land, reveals that the Angel of Yahweh, Yahweh himself, and the \u201cpresence\u201d of God are synonymous. The Angel is Yahweh because Yahweh is inseparable from his presence.
\nThis identification between Yahweh and the Angel provides a theological context for other passages in the Old Testament. For example, in Gen 31:11\u201313, the Angel of God (mal\u2019akh ha\u2019elohim), alluding to Yahweh\u2019s earlier appearance to Jacob after he had left his home, tells Jacob in a dream, \u201cI am the God of Bethel.\u201d Jacob, just prior to his dramatic encounter with Esau on his journey home, encounters a \u201cman\u201d who accosts him; according to Hos 12:3\u20135, Jacob struggled with elohim (\u201cGod\u201d). This divine man changes Jacob\u2019s name to Israel, signifying that God has been with him, as promised so many years earlier. Later, in Gen 48, when Jacob is near death and pronouncing blessing on Joseph\u2019s sons, he recalls this event in a way that highlights the fusion of Yahweh and the Angel:<\/p>\n
And he blessed Joseph and said, \u201cThe God [ha-elohim] before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked, the God [ha-elohim] who shepherded me all my life unto this day, the angel [ha-mal\u2019ak] who redeemed me from all evil, may he bless the boys.\u201d (Gen 48:15\u201316a LEB)<\/p>\n
The Bible very clearly teaches that, on the one hand, God is eternal and existed before all things and, on the other, that angels are created beings. The explicit parallel of \u201cGod\u201d and \u201cAngel,\u201d therefore, certainly does not imply that God is an angel. Rather, it affirms that this Angel is God. The verb \u201cbless,\u201d moreover, is grammatically singular; a grammatically plural verb would indicate that Jacob is asking two different persons to bless the boys\u2014the singular thus indicates a fusion of the two divine beings.<\/p>\n
The Angel and Yahweh in Simultaneous Appearance<\/p>\n
Judges 6 records Gideon\u2019s call to serve as a judge in Israel. In this call, Gideon encounters both the Angel of Yahweh and the voice of Yahweh\u2014just as Moses had:1<\/p>\n
12 The angel of Yahweh appeared to him [Gideon] and said to him, \u201cYahweh is with you, you mighty warrior.\u201d
\n13 Gideon said to him, \u201cExcuse me, my lord. If Yahweh is with us, why then has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonderful deeds that our ancestors recounted to us, saying, \u2018Did not Yahweh bring us up from Egypt?\u2019 But now Yahweh has forsaken us; he has given us into the palm of Midian.\u201d
\n14 And Yahweh turned to him and said, \u201cGo in this your strength, and you will deliver Israel from the palm of Midian. Did I not send you?\u201d
\n15 He [Gideon] said to him, \u201cExcuse me, my lord. How will I deliver Israel? Look, my clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the youngest in my father\u2019s house.\u201d
\n16 And Yahweh said to him, \u201cBut I will be with you, and you will defeat Midian as if they are one man.\u201d
\n17 And he [Gideon] said to him, \u201cPlease, if I have found favor in your eyes, show me a sign that you are speaking with me. 18 Please, do not depart from here until I come back to you and bring out my gift and set it out before you.\u201d
\nAnd he [the angel] said, \u201cI will stay until you return.\u201d \u2026
\n21 Then the angel of Yahweh reached out the tip of the staff that was in his hand, and he touched the meat and the unleavened cakes; and fire went up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened cakes. And the angel of Yahweh went from his sight.
\n22 And Gideon realized that he was the angel of Yahweh; and Gideon said, \u201cOh, my lord Yahweh! For now I have seen the angel of Yahweh face to face.\u201d
\n23 And Yahweh said to him, \u201cPeace be with you. Do not fear; you will not die.\u201d<\/p>\n
In this passage, the Angel vanishes in verse 21, but Yahweh is still talking to Gideon in verse 23. The Angel both is and is not Yahweh. This sort of description parallels New Testament passages about Jesus, who is God but is also not the Father.<\/p>\n
Jesus, the Angel, and the Name<\/p>\n
Several New Testament passages subtly identify Jesus with the Angel of Yahweh. For example, Jude 5 reads:<\/p>\n
Now I want to remind you, although you know everything once and for all, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, the second time destroyed those who did not believe. (LEB)<\/p>\n
In this short verse, Jude credits Jesus with delivering the Israelites from Egypt and destroying Israel\u2019s enemies. This passage refers to Exod 23:20\u201323, where the Angel of Yahweh, in whom is the Name, leads Israel out of Egypt. Although some manuscripts of the New Testament do not read \u201cJesus\u201d here, the reading is most likely original.2
\nIn John 17:1\u201326, while in prayer awaiting Judas\u2019s betrayal, Jesus describes himself several times as one who was given the name of the Father and who manifests the name to the people of God (LEB):<\/p>\n
I have revealed your name to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you have given them to me, and they have kept your word. (17:6)<\/p>\n
Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given to me, so that they may be one, just as we are. When I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given to me. (17:11b\u201312a)<\/p>\n
And I do not ask on behalf of these only, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, that they all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. (17:20\u201321a)<\/p>\n
And I made known to them your name, and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I may be in them. (17:26)<\/p>\n
Jesus here states both that he has been given the \u201cname\u201d of the Father (17:11) and that the Father is \u201cin\u201d him (17:21). The language would seem odd without the Old Testament background discussed above where the \u201cName\u201d represents the essence of Yahweh himself. The Name\u2014the very presence of Yahweh\u2014was \u201cin\u201d the Angel of Yahweh, implying that the Angel was the embodied presence of Yahweh. John elsewhere calls Jesus the \u201cWord,\u201d language that draws on several Old Testament passages that allude to Yahweh\u2019s earthly presence as the \u201cword\u201d (Gen 15:1; 1 Sam 3:21). Here John casts Jesus as the embodied Name, who, as the incarnate Yahweh, came to reveal that Name, God himself, to humanity. Jesus, in other words, did not teach anyone God\u2019s name; they knew the name already from the Old Testament. Rather, he was God come to humankind.
\nIn the same manner that Old Testament authors use \u201cthe Name\u201d as a substitute reference for Yahweh, other New Testament writers use the \u201cthe Name\u201d as a substitution for Jesus:<\/p>\n
And they summoned the apostles, beat them, commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and released them. 41 So they went out from the presence of the Sanhedrin rejoicing, because they had been considered worthy to be dishonored for the sake of the name. 42 Every day, both in the temple courts and from house to house, they did not stop teaching and proclaiming the good news that the Christ was Jesus. (Acts 5:40\u201342 LEB)<\/p>\n
The expression here indicates, at the very least, a similar mode of thinking as in the Old Testament\u2014that these Jews can refer to the God they follow with the phrase \u201cthe Name,\u201d their ethnic status giving the phrase a distinct Old Testament flavor. Moreover, it is clear that the Name for whom the apostles suffer is Jesus. In Romans 10, Paul says:<\/p>\n
That if you confess with your mouth \u201cJesus is Lord\u201d and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.\u2026 For \u201ceveryone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.\u201d (Rom 10:9, 13 LEB)<\/p>\n
The quotation in verse 13 comes from Joel 2:32, which reads, \u201ceveryone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be rescued\u201d (LEB). The apostle Paul here, as he does many times throughout his writings, deftly links the confession of Jesus as Lord in verse 9 with the statement of the Old Testament prophet. Since \u201cthe Name\u201d and Yahweh were interchangeable in Israelite theology, trusting in \u201cthe Name of Yahweh\u201d meant trusting in Yahweh. Likewise, trusting in the name of the Lord, who of course is Yahweh in the Old Testament quotation, is the same as confessing Jesus as Lord.<\/p>\n
17<\/p>\n
Salvation in Old Testament Israel<\/p>\n
The New Testament\u2019s rejection of earning God\u2019s favor by works and its emphasis on salvation by grace through faith (e.g., Eph 2:8\u20139; Gal 2:16; Rom 4:1\u201312) has led many people to presume that the Old Testament teaches that people could merit salvation by obeying the Mosaic law. However, this is not the case.
\nOld Testament theology, with its complex sacrificial system, had a firm grasp of the problem of sin, which was variously defined as being ritually impure or transgressing God\u2019s moral law. As members of a stable nation trying to walk with their God, literally not a day could pass in the normal course of Israel\u2019s life when they were not reminded that they were imperfect and impure in the sight of a holy God. Nothing would create the idea that human goodness could earn God\u2019s pleasure. However, since living according to God\u2019s law and maintaining the purity of sacrificial worship required great human effort, Israelites also knew that salvation was not a purely passive status. The issue is not that human effort was not part of salvation. It would have been foreign to the Israelite to think that faith was not a fundamental requirement for salvation or that an individual\u2019s own works resulted in God owing salvation to anyone.
\nTherefore, in its framing, Old Testament salvation was the same as New Testament salvation. In the New Testament, works were essential to salvation (Jas 2:14\u201326), but they were never the meritorious cause of salvation; God owed salvation to no one on the basis of works. This is not contrary to Paul\u2019s assertion that no one was justified by works. James and Paul could thus be fused this way: \u201cFor by grace are you saved through faith, which without works is dead\u201d (Eph 2:8; Jas 2:17). No element can be eliminated. Jesus said that a tree (and hence a believer) was known by its fruit (Matt 12:33). If an individual does not have works (\u201cfruit\u201d), there is no evidence of salvation. The presence of works is essential for calling someone a believer. But works do not put God in the position of owing salvation. Salvation comes by faith in Christ (its object), which produces works. Both must be present. Old Testament salvation can be framed the same way, though the object of faith differs.
\nWith respect to the Old Testament Israelite, faith was essential to standing in right relationship to God. The Israelite had to believe that Yahweh, the God of Israel, was the true God, superior to all other gods. This would produce fruit in the form of loyal worship of only Yahweh and no other god. Old Testament Israelites also had to believe that Yahweh had come to their forefathers\u2014Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob\u2014and made a covenant with them that made them his exclusive people. This covenant included specific promises to be believed by faith. Faith in the divine origin of the covenant and its promises involved obedience. The language of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:1\u20133; 15:1\u20136) was frequently repeated in connection with obedience to God (e.g., Gen 17:1\u20136; 22:18; 26:5). The patriarchs could not have disobeyed God\u2019s commands by rejecting circumcision, refusing to go where God commanded, and rejecting sacrifice, and still received God\u2019s blessing. The children of the patriarchs also had to believe that the God who delivered them from Egypt was the same God of their forefathers. That same God gave Israel the law to distinguish them as his unique possession of humanity on earth (e.g., Exod 20\u201323; Lev 10\u201311). An Israelite who believed he was a child of the God of Sinai produced fruit by obeying the law. The law of Sinai was connected to the promises given to Abraham (Lev 26). Faith in Yahweh and loyalty to Yahweh were both part of salvation (right relationship to God) in the Old Testament. Individuals could not be rightly-related to God by means of only one.
\nIn all this, Israelites could not do the works of the law and then presume God owed them salvation. God was in relationship with Israel because he chose to be in that relationship\u2014he chose this before obedience was any issue. God extended grace by calling Abraham; Abraham believed, and then Abraham showed that belief by obedience (Rom 4). The concept \u201ccircumcision of the heart\u201d is telling in regard to the balance of faith and works. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant. Since performing it required human activity, it could be thought of as a good work. God desired obedience\u2014the submission of one\u2019s will\u2014on this matter. \u201cCircumcision of the heart\u201d speaks of a heart that believes, not a work. It is a heart submitted to God, not merely the will. A circumcised heart was a believing heart, and it was essential for right relationship to God (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 31:33; 32:39, 40; Ezek 11:19; 36:26, 27).
\nIn the Old Testament law and the sacrificial system, failure was inevitable; fellowship with God would inevitably be broken. Moreover, humans were impure by nature and unable to approach the perfect divine presence. The book of Leviticus indicates that people could purge (\u201catone for\u201d) the impurity caused by sin and transgression through sacrifice, which resulted in forgiveness (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7; Num 15:25\u201328). But they did not earn forgiveness; God provided the entire means of forgiveness\u2014the sacrificial system\u2014through his grace. God was not forced to provide a means of atonement or reveal what he would accept for atonement. The means of restoring fellowship with God was an extension of God\u2019s grace.<\/p>\n
18<\/p>\n
Where the Wild (Demonic) Things Are<\/p>\n
Students of the cultural context of the Bible are familiar with the association between animals and idolatry. The idolatrous worship of the golden calf (egel; Exod 32:1\u201324) makes the connection explicit. Even after the Israelites entered into a covenant relationship with Yahweh at Sinai, Moses and Aaron had to act to prevent the people from sacrificing to \u201cgoat demons\u201d (se\u2019irim) in the wilderness (Lev 17:7). Centuries later, the apostasy of King Jeroboam returned this idolatry to the northern kingdom of Israel (\u201cHe appointed his own priests for the high places and for the goat idols [se\u2019irim] and for the calves [agalim] that he had made\u201d; 1 Chr 11:15).
\nThe reference to \u201cgoat demons\u201d (se\u2019irim) in the wilderness and their idols is of special interest because the link between the demonic and the desert has strong Old Testament precedent. The connection would have been apparent to Israelites because a range of wild animals and birds were specifically associated with foreign gods and their idols in pagan religions of biblical times. For example, consider the listing of desert creatures in Isaiah 34:<\/p>\n
But the hawk and the porcupine shall possess it, the owl [yanshoph] and the raven shall dwell in it.\u2026 Thorns shall grow over its strongholds, nettles and thistles in its fortresses. It shall be the haunt of jackals [tannim], an abode for ostriches. And wild animals [tsiyyim] shall meet with hyenas [iyyim]; the wild goat [se\u2019irim] shall cry to his fellow; indeed, there the night bird [lilith] settles and finds for herself a resting place. (Isa 34:11, 13\u201314)<\/p>\n
The Hebrew terms in this passage are associated with false gods in the religions of the ancient Near East.1 The yanshoph of verse 11 has been identified with the ibis, the animal emblem of the god Thoth, worshiped by ancient Egyptians.
\nThe words tannim and iyyim (vv. 13\u201314) are set in parallel relationship elsewhere in Isaiah (13:22), possibly suggesting the terms were synonyms for a wild dog.2 However, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), renders both words with onokentauros, variously interpreted as \u201chairless ape\u201d3 or \u201cdonkey-centaur, mythic creature.\u201d4 Since tsiyyim is related to vocabulary for arid places, the term is considered to point to a sinister \u201cdesert creature.\u201d Its placement in Isaiah 34:14, in parallel with the \u201cgoat demons\u201d (se\u2019irim), strongly implies a demonic meaning.5 This notion is strengthened by the reference in the same verse to lilith, a female demon with a long history stretching back to Sumerian material.6 She was considered a night-demon who took the lives of small children and seduced men nocturnally.
\nBy New Testament times, the association of demons and the wilderness would have been very familiar to most Jews. Demonic encounters in the Gospels are often set in the desert (e.g., Matt 12:43\u201345; Luke 8:29; 11:24\u201326), and Jesus encountered Satan in the wilderness (Matt 4:1\u201311).
\nThis last encounter is telling, for the Son of God dispatches the desert\u2019s most lethal threat with three citations from Deuteronomy (6:13, 16; 8:3)\u2014a text famously set in Israel\u2019s desert encampment just before the conquest of Canaan. Jewish readers of the Gospel accounts would not have missed the point: Jesus of Nazareth has overcome the powers of darkness; believe in him.<\/p>\n
19<\/p>\n
The Secret Things Belong to the Lord<\/p>\n
We\u2019re all guilty of giving excuses. Although we know deep down that excuses don\u2019t solve problems, that doesn\u2019t stop us from using them to deflect attention away from our mistakes and flaws. Sometimes we even use Scripture as an excuse to avoid addressing difficult Bible passages. We might appeal to Deuteronomy 29:29 when we encounter biblical passages that seem too confusing or weird: \u201cThe secret things belong to the LORD our God.\u201d
\nBible students, teachers, and professors alike often cite this verse to avoid researching problematic or strange passages. It can serve as a way of expressing our real excuses in a more \u201cspiritual\u201d way:<\/p>\n
\u201cI want my Bible to be simple\u2014you\u2019re making my head hurt.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis isn\u2019t important. Analyzing the Bible doesn\u2019t help us love Jesus.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is stuff only pastors need to know; let\u2019s be more practical.\u201d<\/p>\n
The problem is this verse doesn\u2019t mean what its advocates think it means. There\u2019s no Bible verse that discourages us from studying the Bible. The misuse of Deuteronomy 29:29 stems from our tendency to focus on just the first half of the verse. The complete verse provides a contextual clue for what\u2019s really in view:<\/p>\n
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.<\/p>\n
The key phrase here is \u201cthis law.\u201d Deuteronomy 29:29 is the climax of Moses\u2019 lengthy sermon about receiving God\u2019s blessings for obedience to his laws or curses for disobedience upon entering the promised land.
\nMoses\u2019 sermon begins in Deuteronomy 27. The first eight verses outline the ceremonial duties the Israelites had to perform upon entering Canaan: They were to affirm \u201call the words of this law\u201d\u2014referring to Deuteronomy 5\u201326, which contains laws that repeat and amplify those God had given to the nation 40 years earlier at Sinai (Deut 27:3). Upon entering the promised land, the Israelites were to ritually enact a ceremony reaffirming their commitment to God\u2019s laws (Deut 27:9\u201314). The rest of chapter 27 and the entirety of chapter 28 detail how disobedience to God\u2019s laws would result in the people and the land being accursed; conversely, obedience would produce overflowing blessing. Deuteronomy 29 then reviews Israel\u2019s history of failure amid God\u2019s covenantal faithfulness. The history lesson comes to a close with Deuteronomy 29:29.
\nReading this verse fully and in context reveals that it isn\u2019t granting us permission to skip things that are difficult to understand or to avoid analyzing God\u2019s word. It\u2019s a warning: Concealed acts of sin\u2014transgressions of the laws listed in Moses\u2019 sermon\u2014are known to God. While the Israelites were responsible for dealing with known violations of God\u2019s law, secret transgressions would be dealt with by God, who knows all things. Recognizing Deuteronomy 29:29 for what it really is may result in more effort in our Bible studies, but more important, taking its lesson to heart will build spiritual character.<\/p>\n
20<\/p>\n
The Ongoing Battle of Jericho<\/p>\n
The spectacular fall of Jericho\u2019s walls in Joshua 6 ranks as one of the most memorable stories in the Old Testament. It stands alongside epic tales like the parting of the Red Sea and the battle between David and Goliath. But many consider the description of events in the book of Joshua a litmus test for the Bible\u2019s historical fallibility.
\nThe modern debate over Jericho\u2019s historicity has raged for decades. It\u2019s a complex battleground with strategic assaults from multiple perspectives. Archaeology and chronology are on the controversy\u2019s frontlines.<\/p>\n
The Biblical Account<\/p>\n
To understand the conflict, we need a clear picture of the chronology of events as recorded in the Bible. Following the exodus from Egypt, Joshua replaced Moses as Israel\u2019s leader (Num 27:18\u201323; Deut 31:7\u20138). He led the conquest of Jericho. According to 1 Kings 6:1, the fourth year of King Solomon\u2019s reign marked 480 years since the exodus. Solomon\u2019s fourth year is commonly dated to 966 BC, which places the exodus in 1446 BC (known as the \u201cearly\u201d date).1 Israel would have arrived at Sinai a few months later. According to the Pentateuch, they spent 13 months there before venturing to the promised land, where their spiritual failures prompted God to sentence them to wandering the desert for forty years (Num 10:11; 14:26\u201333). About forty years later Israel once again prepared to enter the land under Joshua (Deut 2:14). This literal reading of the chronology, particularly 1 Kings 6:1, places the fall of Jericho around 1400 BC.<\/p>\n
The Archaeological View<\/p>\n
Since the mid-20th century, many archaeologists who focus on the biblical world have argued that it is impossible to reconcile the timeline of the biblical account with archaeological data. They argue that (1) Jericho was destroyed in 1250 BC, but the city had no walls; (2) there was no walled city in 1400 BC when the book of Joshua reports Jericho\u2019s walls falling\u2014in fact the city was unoccupied; and (3) there is little evidence of a broader Israelite conquest of Canaan in 1250 BC.2
\nThese archaeologists claim the evidence for Jericho\u2019s fall points to a date nearly 200 years later\u2014around 1250 BC, near the end of the Late Bronze Age (1550\u20131200 BC). Archaeological work on Jericho has shown that the city was uninhabited from 1550 BC to about 1300 BC. Furthermore, the archaeological record shows the city had no walls, which contradicts (and, they argue, corrects) archaeological work conducted in the early 20th century that revealed burned walls dating to around 1400 BC (see Josh 7:24). However, later research re-dated those walls much earlier than where the literal chronology of the Bible places the destruction of Jericho. Furthermore, the archaeological record of other cities allegedly conquered by Joshua shows no sign of destruction.3<\/p>\n
The View from Another Bunker<\/p>\n
Yet, other evidence mars this argument. Pottery from Jericho dating to around 1400 BC, apparently ignored or unrecognized by some archaeologists, does indeed exist. The same can be said for city walls, specifically walls that had collapsed, not broken down into the city. Egyptian scarabs found in Jericho cemeteries, etched with names of pharaohs who reigned from the 1700s through the 1300s BC, contradict the claim that the city was unoccupied in 1400 BC. The level of the city (Jericho IV) corresponding to the 1400 BC date shows evidence of sudden siege. The biblical account says Joshua\u2019s attack took place in early spring, after the harvest (Josh 2:6; 3:15; 4:9; 5:10). Several large storage jars still full of harvested food were found among the ruins in level IV.4
\nFurthermore, the conquest account in Joshua does not say that all the cities taken by Israel were destroyed or burned. In many instances, the account merely says the inhabitants were \u201cdriven out\u201d and the cities occupied by Israelites. This would explain the lack of evidence of Canaanite cities being destroyed. Consequently, some archaeologists still argue for the integrity of the biblical account according to the literal chronological reading that renders the early (1446 BC) date for the exodus and a 1400 BC conquest.<\/p>\n
The Figurative View<\/p>\n
Some biblical scholars present a third option. They lobby for the accuracy of the Joshua account but are content to go with the 1250 BC date held by most archaeologists\u2014arguing that the archaeological record is consistent with military campaigns described in Joshua since the book describes the destruction of only particular sites.5 In this view, the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1\u2014which supplies a chronology for the exodus\u2014is taken as a figurative number, not a literal one. The 480 years described in this passage are divisible by 40 (12 \u00d7 40). The number 40 occurs more than 100 times in the Old Testament. The reigns of many judges and kings seem to be 40 years, and so scholars suspect that the number is a deliberate marker for a generation or transition (e.g., Judg 3:11, 31; 8:28; 1 Sam 4:18; 2 Sam 2:10; 5:4; 1 Kgs 2:11; 11:42). As a result, the dates of the exodus and conquest may be flexible.
\nIt\u2019s important to remember that, while the battle over Jericho still rages, it\u2019s not a death match for biblical inerrancy.<\/p>\n
21<\/p>\n
Scripture\u2019s Sacred Trees<\/p>\n
Before his death, Joshua gathered all of Israel to Shechem to deliver his final words (Josh 24). He demanded that everyone within the sound of his voice \u201cchoose this day whom you will serve\u201d (24:15)\u2014the God of their fathers or the foreign gods of their enemies. The choice was obvious for Joshua, and that\u2019s pretty much where the story ends for many. Yet, something intriguing happens after Joshua\u2019s statement of faith:<\/p>\n
And the people said to Joshua, \u201cThe LORD our God we will serve, and his voice we will obey.\u201d So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and put in place statutes and rules for them at Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. And he took a large stone and set it up there under the terebinth that was by the sanctuary of the LORD. (24:24\u201326)<\/p>\n
This passage tells us that Joshua wrote down the covenant promise vowed that day and then put a big rock underneath a tree to remind people of the event. An Israelite witness would definitely know that their words had been added to \u201cthe Book of the Law of God.\u201d The custom of erecting a commemorative stela\u2014a large stone with a flat surface for writing\u2014was a common event. Hundreds of these stones have survived from the ancient Near East. But equally as important to an Israelite\u2014and often overlooked by us\u2014was the terebinth.
\nA terebinth was a tree, but it was no ordinary tree. This was the tree that stood \u201cby the sanctuary of the LORD\u201d (24:26). Why would the Israelites put their sanctuary\u2014the tabernacle structure with the ark of the covenant\u2014next to a tree? Why even mention the tree?
\nIn the Old Testament, trees often marked sacred sites\u2014places of divine encounter. This particular tree marked a divine encounter at the core of Israel\u2019s existence. Genesis 12:6\u20137 records that Yahweh appeared to Abram at Shechem at the oak of Mamre, where Yahweh makes the promises of the covenant.1 Here, Yahweh chooses Abraham and says that his offspring would be a great nation through whom all the nations would be blessed. Later Jacob buries his family\u2019s idols at this same spot to fulfill a vow to Yahweh (Gen 35:4). Jacob\u2019s act is no coincidence. His gesture recalls the incident that birthed Israel\u2019s covenant relationship. The oak at Shechem became a sacred site.
\nThese events explain why the tree at Shechem was special for Joshua and the Israelites\u2014it marked holy ground. Later, in Judges 9:5\u20136, Gideon\u2019s son Abimelech was declared king \u201cby the oak of the pillar at Shechem.\u201d The \u201cpillar\u201d is a possible reference to the stela erected by Joshua before his death. This pillar appears again in Judges 9, where it is associated with divine revelation (Judg 9:34\u201337).
\nThe Old Testament contains many other allusions to sacred trees and \u201ctree language.\u201d The tree of life in Eden (Gen 2:9) is quite obviously associated with the presence of God. In Judges 4:4\u20135 the prophetess Deborah customarily sat under \u201cthe palm tree of Deborah\u201d to fulfill her ministry and receive revelation from God (compare 1 Kgs 13:14).
\nAnd then there is the most sacred tree in Scripture\u2014the cross, the place of our own divine encounter. Paul, speaking of Jesus, reminds us that \u201ccursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree\u201d (Gal 3:13). Jesus bore that curse for us so that we could be part of God\u2019s holy family. But the poignant irony is that Jesus was the embodied Word of the LORD who had once appeared to Abram (Gen 12:6\u20137; 15:1) promising he would be the father of a holy nation.2 Jesus\u2019 work on the cross\u2014his work of salvation on our behalf\u2014fulfilled the covenant promised at the tree of Shechem.<\/p>\n
22<\/p>\n
Boaz\u2014the Lawbreaker?<\/p>\n
The book of Ruth contains one of the happy-ending stories of the Old Testament: Ruth, a destitute widow, marries Boaz, \u201ca worthy man,\u201d and in doing so, saves her grieving mother-in-law from a life of certain poverty. But what readers may not realize is that by marrying Ruth, Boaz appears to have violated an Old Testament law: \u201cNo Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the LORD forever\u201d (Deut 23:3).
\nThe book of Ruth leaves no ambiguity about Ruth\u2019s heritage and situation. She was a Moabite (Ruth 1:4) who had married Mahlon, an Israelite man living in Moab with his family to escape famine in his hometown of Bethlehem (4:10). We know the rest of the story\u2014how Mahlon, along with his brother and father, died (1:3\u20135); how Ruth journeyed to Bethlehem with her grieving and impoverished mother-in-law Naomi (1:6\u201319); how Boaz honored the law of the levirate (Deut 25:5\u201310) and redeemed Ruth through marriage, preserving Mahlon\u2019s name and Elimelech\u2019s property on Naomi\u2019s behalf (Ruth 4:9\u201310). But when she married Boaz, did Ruth not \u201center the assembly of the LORD\u201d? Is this heartwarming story just a flagrant transgression of Old Testament law?
\nThe question becomes more uncomfortable when we realize that, later in Israel\u2019s history, both Nehemiah and Ezra criticized the men of Israel for marrying foreign women after the return from exile (Neh 13:23\u201327; Ezra 10). Ezra actually sanctioned the marriages\u2019 termination, even if they had produced children (Ezra 10:10\u201319, 44). Nehemiah mentions that some of these unions were with women from Moab (Neh 13:23).
\nSome scholars try to absolve Boaz by focusing on ways to interpret the phrase \u201cthe assembly of the LORD\u201d in Deuteronomy 23:3. The noun translated \u201cassembly\u201d (qahal) refers broadly to a gathering or group. In certain passages it clearly refers to all the Israelites collectively as a nation (Exod 16:3; Lev 16:17). Other times it refers to an assembly of only Israelite men (Judg 21:5, 8; Josh 8:35) or a governing body responsible for public business and judicial decisions (1 Kgs 12:3; Jer 26:16\u201317; Ezek 23:45\u201347). Some have suggested that Boaz could marry Ruth because the prohibition refers only to the leadership of Israel. Yet it\u2019s difficult to demonstrate that this instance wasn\u2019t speaking of the entire community when the phrase does elsewhere.
\nInstead, let\u2019s compare Deuteronomy 23:3 (and hence Boaz\u2019s marriage) with other Old Testament perspectives on foreigners living in Israel. Several passages distinguish foreigners from the collective assembly of Israelites (Num 15:15, 26; 2 Chr 30:25). Foreigners did not have equal status under all Old Testament laws\u2014they were excluded from laws restricting indentured servitude (Lev 25:39\u201343, 46, 54\u201355), debt release (Deut 15:2\u20133), and loaning money at interest (Deut 23:19\u201320). And while intermarriage with foreign women was generally forbidden, there were exceptions (Deut 21:10\u201314). The case of Rahab is perhaps most telling: She had clearly converted to belief in Yahweh (Josh 2:11\u201312; Jas 2:25) and was allowed to live in Israel (Josh 6:25).
\nThis is crucial: A foreigner had come to embrace Yahweh\u2014the LORD\u2014as the true God. Ezra and Nehemiah\u2019s accounts make no mention of conversions. But in the case of Boaz\u2019s redemption of Ruth, her allegiance to the God of Israel is front and center: \u201cYour people shall be my people, and your God my God\u201d (Ruth 1:16).1 Boaz had not sinned by marrying a Moabite because Ruth\u2019s loyalties were clearly with Yahweh, the God of Israel.<\/p>\n
23<\/p>\n
Of Mice and Manhood<\/p>\n
Bible readers are familiar with the Israelites\u2019 shocking loss of the ark of the covenant into the hands of the Philistines (1 Sam 4:11\u201322). Adding insult to injury, the Philistines took the ark to Ashdod and placed it in the temple of their god, Dagon (5:1\u20132). Yahweh\u2019s response\u2014reducing the idol of Dagon to a grotesque stump without limbs\u2014was swift and dramatic (5:3\u20135). But God was not content with this vivid display of contempt for Dagon. The people of Ashdod had to be taught a lesson\u2014one just as unforgettable.
\nFirst Samuel 5:6 tells us that God punished the Philistines with a bodily affliction called ophalim in Hebrew, often translated \u201ctumors\u201d and thought to refer to hemorrhoids.1 \u201cTumors\u201d is actually not a translation of the term that appears in the traditional text of the Hebrew Bible, the Masoretic text. Rather, it is a translation of a different word suggested by ancient scribes in what\u2019s known as a Kethiv-Qere reading\u2014a note placed in the margin of Hebrew manuscripts by Masoretic scribes. Kethiv means \u201cwhat is written\u201d in the Hebrew text (in this case, ophalim) and Qere means \u201cwhat should be read.\u201d Scribes substituted the word tehorim (\u201cswellings\u201d) in 1 Samuel 5\u20136 for ophalim.2 This scribal change is odd since ophel (the singular form of ophalim) simply means \u201chill, bulge\u201d (Mic 4:8; Isa 32:14).3
\nAside from this manuscript issue, the term is puzzling because the regretful Philistines sent ophalim of gold and five golden mice as a guilt offering to Yahweh when they released the ark (1 Sam 6:4\u201318). The sets of five corresponded to the five cities of the Philistines (6:17). Since the god Dagon (outside Mesopotamia) was associated with grain and harvest, the reference to mice \u201cthat ravage the land\u201d points to a decimation of Philistine crops (6:5). In turn, many interpreters justify adopting the scribal suggestion of tumors by arguing that the reference to mice might indicate bubonic plague. But how would one fashion a \u201ctumor\u201d of gold?
\nRecent archaeological discoveries have produced an alternative possibility\u2014an affliction that would strike terror into any ancient culture that also served to mock Dagon and Philistine religion.4 In the 1990s, archaeologists working at Ashkelon (one of the five Philistine cities named in this episode) discovered seven bronze vessels in the form of the male phallus. Typically such objects were used in rituals dealing with fertility (of both the human population and the land). These objects are well-known in the Aegean, the area from which most scholars believe the Philistines originated. This raises the possibility that the objects fashioned by the Philistines were these types of phallic objects. It is quite understandable that ophel (\u201cmound, bulge\u201d) could be used to refer to such objects euphemistically.
\nWhat is the theological takeaway? Yahweh may have afflicted the Philistines by eliminating their food supply and sending some sort of disease that prevented copulation\u2014and thus, having children. The Philistines were rightly terrified. Yahweh, the God of Israel, made it clear that he had complete power over their immediate and future survival as a people. Their release of the ark was literally a choice between life and death.<\/p>\n
24<\/p>\n
Samuel\u2019s Ghost and Saul\u2019s Judgment<\/p>\n
The afterlife is one of biblical theology\u2019s most compelling themes. Death is not final; there is life beyond the grave. We associate this idea with our final fate. But the Bible has a wider perspective\u2014one that includes what we would commonly think of as ghosts. First Samuel 28 is one of the clearest windows into the world of the living dead.
\nHaving expelled all the mediums from Israel, Saul nevertheless commands his servants to find a medium after God refuses to offer him guidance against the Philistines (1 Sam 28:3\u20137). Saul visits the medium at Endor by night and asks her to contact the deceased Samuel (28:8\u201311). She complies and, upon seeing Samuel, panics, believing that Saul has tricked her to expose her illicit practices. Here\u2019s where the story takes a spooky turn. Saul asks the medium, \u201cWhat do you see?\u201d She replies, \u201cI see a god coming up out of the earth.\u2026 An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe\u201d (28:13\u201314).
\nSaul immediately discerns that it is Samuel ascending from the underworld realm of the dead. There is no indication in the biblical text that the medium is lying or that she is deceived. When Samuel asks Saul, \u201cWhy have you disturbed me by bringing me up?\u201d the distraught king answers, \u201cI am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more\u201d (28:15). Saul is of course correct, and Samuel speaks the word of the LORD to him as he had done while he lived. Saul has become the LORD\u2019s enemy, and God will now judge Saul and his sons (28:16\u201319).
\nThe most interesting detail of the episode is the medium\u2019s word choice: she sees \u201ca god\u201d coming up out of the ground. The Hebrew word translated \u201cgod\u201d is elohim, a term used more than 2,000 times for the true God, Yahweh of Israel. Why is the dead Samuel described with this word?
\nDespite being used for the God of Israel, the word elohim is not a label that uniquely refers to Yahweh. The term is used elsewhere of demons and divine members of Yahweh\u2019s unseen heavenly host (Deut 32:17; Ps 82:1). The word elohim is how biblical writers described a member of what we think of as the spiritual world. God is part of that world but is superior to all of its members (Exod 15:11; Isa 37:16, 20; Neh 9:6; Ps 136:2). Samuel\u2019s body had been entombed at Ramah (1 Sam 25:1; 28:3), but his spirit was living on the other side, in the realm of the dead\u2014what we call the afterlife. All residents of that realm are described with the term elohim in the Old Testament.
\nThis worldview was shared by Israel\u2019s neighbors.1 The Hebrew phrase translated \u201cmedium\u201d in 1 Samuel 28:7 is ba\u2019alath-ov (literally, \u201cmistress of the spirit of the dead\u201d). The word ov refers to the human dead. This word occurs in Isaiah 19:3 in parallel to three other terms connected with the dead in the afterlife. One of these (ittim) is a close parallel to the Akkadian word for \u201cghost\u201d (etemmu), a spirit of a deceased person that interacts with the living, human world.
\nThe biblical writers believed in ghosts\u2014the dead who lived on in the afterlife and could be contacted. But such contact was forbidden (Deut 18:9\u201314). The reason was not that it couldn\u2019t be done; it could. Rather, God insisted that he be the lone source of information from the spiritual world for his people. The command was for their own good\u2014to prevent them from being deceived or harmed. The incident at Endor was exceptional, allowed by God for the purpose of reiterating his judgment of Saul.<\/p>\n
25<\/p>\n
The Politics of Marriage<\/p>\n
When it comes to marriage, modern Western culture puts a premium on love. The notion is so ingrained that it\u2019s easy for us to presume that marriage worked the same way in biblical times. It often didn\u2019t. We need to resist romanticizing the relationships of biblical heroes and heroines\u2014and that includes King David and his wives.
\nThe Bible makes it clear that David was a polygamist (1 Sam 25:39\u201343; 2 Sam 5:13). This wasn\u2019t unusual for kings or those who desired kingship in ancient times. David took several wives, although this was not something God endorsed for kings (Deut 17:14\u201317). And a careful reading of the Old Testament tells us that David took multiple wives for political reasons.
\nDavid\u2019s first wife was Michal, the youngest daughter of King Saul (1 Sam 14:49). Saul gave Michal as a gift to David after David defeated Goliath (18:27\u201328). Although we are told Michal loved David, we are not told how David felt about her. But focusing too much on the sentiment might make us miss an important detail: The marriage put David in line for the kingship behind Saul\u2019s son Jonathan. When David became Saul\u2019s enemy, Saul took Michal away from David and gave her to another man (25:44). After Saul\u2019s death, when David was on the verge of becoming king over all Israel, he demanded that Michal be returned to him before all the tribes could be joined under his rule (2 Sam 3:12\u201316).
\nDavid\u2019s wives Abigail and Ahinoam, his second and third wives respectively, are mentioned together in several passages (1 Sam 25:43\u201344; 2 Sam 2:2). First Samuel 14:50 identifies Ahinoam, daughter of Ahimaaz, as Saul\u2019s wife. It is possible that the Ahinoam who married Saul is the same Ahinoam that David took as a wife. David could have taken Saul\u2019s wife as his own in order to lay political claim to the rule of all 12 tribes. Even if David\u2019s Ahinoam was not Saul\u2019s wife, Nathan\u2019s denunciation of David years later, after David lusted for Bathsheba, indicates David had acquired other women who had been Saul\u2019s wives.<\/p>\n
I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master\u2019s house and your master\u2019s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. (2 Sam 12:7\u20138)<\/p>\n
When Abigail enters the biblical narrative (1 Sam 25), she is the wife of Nabal, whose name, appropriately, means \u201cfool\u201d in Hebrew. Nabal was very wealthy (1 Sam 25:1\u20132), the sort of wealth that would be expected of a territorial leader. He was also a Calebite (25:3), a descendant of Caleb. This seemingly innocuous detail sets the stage for David\u2019s eventual marriage to Abigail after Nabal\u2019s death.
\nIn the time of Moses and Joshua, Caleb was given the city of Hebron and its nearby territory (Josh 14:12; 15:13\u201314). Hebron played an important role in David\u2019s life. It was one of the cities where he sought refuge as he fled from Saul (1 Sam 30:31), and it was the place where he was anointed king over Judah (2 Sam 2:11). First Chronicles 2:50\u201351 lists Bethlehem, the namesake of David\u2019s ancestral city, as a direct descendant of Caleb. David\u2019s coronation took place in Bethlehem, a city within the territory of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, David\u2019s own tribe (2 Chr 11:5\u201312). After Saul\u2019s death, David began his own partial kingship over Judah and Benjamin, with Hebron as his capital. He reigned there for seven and a half years (2 Sam 5:5). David\u2019s anointing, reign, and coronation were, therefore, all associated with Calebite territory\u2014and so was his wife Abigail, having been previously married to a prominent Calebite. By marrying Abigail, David joined the Calebite and Judahite lines in his rule from Hebron. The marriage made good political sense.
\nIt\u2019s quite clear that David\u2019s marriages were motivated by political strategy\u2014hardly something to emulate. But despite his epic failure to commit to one woman, as God intended, David was unfailingly loyal to Yahweh above all other gods. He never worshiped another. And for that, God chose David\u2019s line to be the conduit for the redemption of us all.<\/p>\n
26<\/p>\n
Defeating Ancient Foes<\/p>\n
Goliath wasn\u2019t the only giant to fall in David\u2019s time. In 2 Samuel 21, David\u2019s mighty men defeat four Philistine warriors who are described as mammoth in size (21:16\u201322). Who were these giant men, and why is their defeat important? The answer lies in the backstory.
\nThe unusually tall inhabitants of Canaan were called \u201cRephaim,\u201d alluding to warriors who were associated with supernatural evil prior to the great flood (Gen 6:4; Deut 2:10\u201311).1 During the conquest, some of these giants, the Anakim\u2014who were \u201ccounted as Rephaim\u201d (Deut 2:11) due to their incredible stature\u2014fled from Joshua\u2019s forces to the city of Gath (Josh 11:22; 13:3). These giants had still not been eradicated from the land by David\u2019s time; Goliath and the four giants David\u2019s men defeated were from Gath, the city of the Anakim (1 Sam 17:4; 2 Sam 21:22). Second Samuel 21:22 further specifies that the four giant men were descendants of giants (ha-raphah) from Gath.2
\nThis is not the only connection between the defeated giants and the Rephaim. The book of Joshua twice mentions \u201cthe valley of Rephaim,\u201d a valley that took its name from the presence of giant warriors (Josh 15:8; 18:16). The same valley is mentioned in 2 Samuel. In David\u2019s day, the valley got its name because the Philistines frequently used it as a base camp for their army (2 Sam 5:18, 22; 23:13). This valley was the location of several Israelite exploits and skirmishes with the Philistines (2 Sam 5:18; 23:13; 1 Chr 11:15). Among the Philistine ranks were giants from the city of Gath\u2014Goliath and the four giant men, one of whom is described as Goliath\u2019s brother (1 Chr 20:5).
\nBy taking out Goliath and four other giants, David and his men revisited the unfinished business of the conquest\u2014the defeat of ancient foes. The biblical narrative therefore casts the establishment of David as king as counteracting this ancient evil.<\/p>\n
27<\/p>\n
Yahweh and His Asherah<\/p>\n
Several inscriptions discovered in the 1970s refer to Yahweh in close association with \u201cAsheratah\u201d (\u02be-sh-r-t-h).1 This term is typically vocalized \u02beasheratah and is usually taken as a reference to the Canaanite goddess Asherah, mentioned in other ancient Semitic texts and the Old Testament. The relevant phrase in one inscription reads lyhwh shmrn wl\u02beshrth (literally, \u201cto Yahweh of Samaria and to Asheratah\u201d).2 In the Old Testament, the name of the goddess is spelled \u02beasherah. \u201cAsheratah\u201d and \u201cAsherah\u201d most likely refer to the same goddess. However, it is not actually clear whether these inscriptions intend to pair Yahweh with the goddess.3<\/p>\n
Who Is Asherah?<\/p>\n
Asherah was an important goddess in the mythology of the ancient city-state of Ugarit, located in what is now northern Syria. In the Ugaritic mythological texts, her name is spelled \u201cAthiratu\u201d (also spelled as \u201cAthirat\u201d); Asherah is the Hebrew spelling. Asherah and her husband El, the creator and high sovereign of the Ugaritic pantheon, were the parents of the gods of the pantheon. Athiratu\/Asherah was thus the wife\/consort of El.4
\nAsherah\u2019s connection to El is significant because \u02beel is one of the names of Israel\u2019s God. But \u02beel is a common, even standard, word for deity in Semitic languages, so its use in the Old Testament is not surprising. Nevertheless, the Old Testament writers do, for polemical reasons, appropriate motifs, imagery, and epithets from the Canaanite El to the God of Israel. The biblical writers wanted their readers to know that it was Yahweh who rightly deserved these lofty titles and exalted glory, not the Canaanite deity. Examples of borrowing between Israelite and Ugaritic religion include El\u2019s dwelling place (a well-watered garden [Eden] and sacred mountain [e.g., Eden in Ezek 28:13; Sinai, Zion]), the appending of \u201cEl\u201d onto other divine names in the patriarchal era (e.g., El-Olam, El-Shaddai, El-Elyon), and titles like \u201cCreator of heaven and earth\u201d (Gen 14:19), and El as \u201cdivine warrior\u201d (compare Exod 15:3). In other ways, the biblical writers are careful to distance Yahweh from the Canaanite El. The most well-known example is El\u2019s sexual prowess in the Ugaritic texts, none of which appears in the Old Testament with respect to the God of Israel.
\nAsherah\/Athiratu should not be confused with another Semitic goddess Ashtart, also spelled Athtartu or Astarte.5 The Ugaritic texts mention the goddess Ashtart nearly fifty times, while the mythological texts only rarely mention her, preferring Athiratu (that is, Asherah). Athtartu\/Ashtart was one of Baal\u2019s consorts in Ugaritic mythology. The name Ashtart occurs fewer than ten times in the Old Testament (e.g., Judgs 2:13 as plural Ashtaroth; 1 Kgs 11:5, 33 as Ashtoreth), but the plural term Ashtaroth is often paired with the plural \u201cBaals,\u201d which reflects the Ashtart-Baal coupling at Ugarit.<\/p>\n
The Term Asherah in the Old Testament<\/p>\n
The term \u02beasherah appears roughly forty times in the Old Testament.6 Most of these instances seem to refer to an object used in religious ceremonies, probably a tree or upright pole; one of the primary symbols for worship of the goddess Asherah was a sacred tree (e.g., Exod 34:13; Judgs 3:7; 6:25\u201326; 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 18:4). Sometimes the term clearly refers to the goddess Asherah herself (1 Kgs 18:19; 2 Kgs 23:4), but other passages blur or combine the two usages (e.g., compare 2 Kgs 21:3, 7).<\/p>\n
\u201cYahweh and His Asherah\u201d<\/p>\n
The most famous inscriptions referring to \u201cYahweh and his \u02beasheratah\u201d come from a site located in the northern Sinai region known as Kuntillet Ajrud.7 The texts date to ca. 800 BC or, in biblical history, the period of Israel\u2019s divided monarchy. In several of the inscriptions, the writer beseeches a blessing from \u201cYahweh \u2026 and \u02beasheratah.\u201d The discovery (among others) prompted two questions: who or what is \u201cAsheratah\u201d in the inscription and what significance does the find have for understanding the religion of ancient Israel?
\nThe term \u201cAsheratah\u201d in these inscriptions could be understood as a symbol associated with Yahweh\u2014in which case, the lowercase should be used in the transliteration: \u201cYahweh and his \u02beasheratah.\u201d It could also be read as the name of the goddess Asherah, but it may refer to a symbol of the goddess Asherah\u2014in which case, again, the lowercase spelling should be used.
\nIf \u201c\u02beasheratah\u201d is a symbol of Yahweh, then the phrase is a reference to Yahweh and some sort of object or shrine associated with him. Worshipers, perhaps, loosely associated a sacred tree with Yahweh; in the OT the God of Israel is associated with the tree of life in Eden (Yahweh\u2019s sacred space) and divine encounters with Yahweh are frequently marked by sacred trees (see Gen 12:6; 13:18; 18:1).8 As a symbol for Yahweh, it could highlight his relationship to the divine being Wisdom in Prov 8:22\u201331, a passage that casts divine Wisdom as a co-creator.9 In this case, there may be a connection with the husband-wife pairing of Athiratu and El from Ugarit. According to this view, Israelite monotheism over the course of its development gradually absorbed the goddess figure of Wisdom into Yahweh. The problem with this view is that no other ancient texts connect Asherah and the concept of divine Wisdom. Additionally, other gods (e.g., Marduk in Babylon) from the ancient Near East that absorb other deities in their ascendancy to supremacy specifically do not absorb goddesses.10
\nIf the inscription points to the personal name Asherah, then whoever wrote the inscription believed that Yahweh had a wife.11 The problem with this view is the final h (the Semitic letter heh) of the spelling would need to be read as a masculine suffix, rather than a feminine ending. The result would be \u201cYahweh and his asherah.\u201d However, rules of Hebrew word formation reject such a spelling for proper personal names. No personal name with such a suffix has ever been found in Hebrew, and it is extraordinarily rare in other west Semitic languages. The odds are therefore very slim that the noun in the inscription is a personal name.
\nThe idea that the inscription points to a symbol of the goddess Asherah, rather than to the goddess herself, could indicate that the writer believed that Yahweh had a consort wife or that Yahweh and Asherah were both deities and thus sought a blessing from both of them. This inscription could then be evidence of Israelite polytheism. The Old Testament frequently highlights (and condemns) Israelite worship of other gods and goddesses, particularly during the divided monarchy after the kingdom split following Solomon\u2019s death (the time when these inscriptions were written). An inscription from that period including the words \u201cYahweh and Asherah\u201d would thus make sense. However, it is quite another thing to argue that this inscription proves \u201corthodox\u201d Israelites once worshiped a goddess. The inscription offers no support for this idea.<\/p>\n
28<\/p>\n
Angels Aren\u2019t Perfect<\/p>\n
Christians commonly think of angels as the good guys of the heavenly realm. The angels that sinned at the time of the flood and were cast into the underworld are, naturally, perceived as evil.1 Consequently, many people separate the \u201cfallen angels\u201d from the \u201cgood\u201d angels. They think of the latter as loyal, trustworthy servants of God, but that\u2019s only partly true.
\nHeavenly angelic beings are called \u201choly ones\u201d in a number of places (Job 5:1; Ps 89:5, 7; Zech 14:5; Dan 4:13, 17; 8:13). Yet in Job, several passages allude to the possibility that God\u2019s angels aren\u2019t inherently perfect and holy:<\/p>\n
Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error. (Job 4:18)<\/p>\n
Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones, and the heavens are not pure in his sight. (Job 15:15)<\/p>\n
How then can man be in the right before God? How can he who is born of woman be pure? Behold, even the moon is not bright, and the stars are not pure in his eyes. (Job 25:4\u20135)<\/p>\n
In Job 4:18, Eliphaz confidently reports that God accuses his own angels of error. There is no indication that the reference is to angels who are already in rebellion or estranged from God for transgressions in the distant past. Eliphaz is even more emphatic in Job 15. The heavens\u2014or, to capture the parallelism more adequately, \u201cheavenly ones\u201d\u2014simply aren\u2019t pure in his sight. If God doesn\u2019t even trust his heavenly entourage, how can Job expect God to accept him as pure and righteous (15:14\u201316)? Bildad\u2019s words in Job 25 echo Eliphaz\u2019s assessment exactly. In the Old Testament, references to the sun, moon, stars, or heavenly host sometimes allude to heavenly beings (Deut 4:19; 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Kgs 21:3; Isa 14:13). Later in Job, these heavenly beings are said to have witnessed the creation of the world (Job 38:4\u20137) and are described using celestial language (\u201cThe morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy\u201d).
\nThese unfavorable assessments of angels do not contradict the more positive portrayals of them elsewhere in Scripture. Angels are not \u201choly ones\u201d due to moral perfection. In fact, this same term (qadosh; plural: qedoshim) is used in reference to people, who obviously lack inherent moral perfection (Pss 16:3; 34:9; Dan 8:24). Angels are called \u201choly ones\u201d for a different reason: They serve in close proximity to God, the Holy One of Israel.
\nThe truth is that the divine beings who share God\u2019s living space don\u2019t have a perfect track record. One such being was responsible for the first rebellion against God, opposing the Edenic plan of the Most High and seducing his human creations to sin (Gen 3; compare Rev 12:9; 20:2). This transgression was followed by the events of Genesis 6:1\u20134 (compare 2 Pet 2:4\u20135). A different group of heavenly \u201csons of God\u201d\u2014allowed to rule the nations as gods after the Tower of Babel judgment (Deut 32:8\u20139; compare 4:19\u201320)\u2014later seduced the Israelites into idolatry and became corrupt (Ps 82; compare Deut 32:17).2
\nIn simplest terms, God doesn\u2019t trust his holy ones because he knows better. But that doesn\u2019t completely capture the truth of these passages from Job. Angels aren\u2019t above moral and spiritual failure for a more fundamental reason: They don\u2019t possess God\u2019s nature or character\u2014nor does any created intelligent being, human or divine. The possibility that any lesser being is allowed to occupy sacred space with the God of creation at all is a testimony to grace.<\/p>\n
29<\/p>\n
From Intercessors to Advocate<\/p>\n
We seldom think of angels as intercessors, but the notion that they mediated between God and humans is an ancient one. The holy ones were part of God\u2019s assembled council (Ps 89:5\u20136; compare 82:1), which was conceived as a heavenly courtroom (Dan 7:10). Angels could even be called to testify before God and served to accuse, to plead on someone\u2019s behalf, or to pass judgment (Job 1:6\u201311; 11:7\u201310; 33:23\u201324).
\nJob\u2019s tragic circumstances evolve from contention in God\u2019s divine council\u2014his heavenly host of the sons of God (Job 1:6\u20132:1)\u2014instigated by the Adversary (ha-satan, often translated \u201cSatan\u201d), who challenges God\u2019s assessment of Job\u2019s unblemished character. In order to prove the Adversary wrong and vindicate his omniscience, God allows Job to suffer (1:9\u201312).
\nWe know the rest of the story\u2014at least the basic elements. Job\u2019s friends prove inept at comforting him; they even compound his suffering. Neither Job nor his friends know what has transpired behind the veil of heaven that led to Job\u2019s misery. The first friend, Eliphaz, tries to convince Job that he must have done something evil:<\/p>\n
Can mortal man be in the right before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker? Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error.\u2026 Call now; is there anyone who will answer you? To which of the holy ones will you turn? (Job 4:17\u201318; 5:1).<\/p>\n
The jab is clear: Job, who are you to think you\u2019re righteous? Are you better than the angels? Will any of them intercede for you? Go ahead\u2014make an appeal to one of the holy ones, the sons of God, who judge the affairs of men with and for God (Dan 7:9\u201310). Will any of them be on your side?
\nScripture sometimes presents the angels\u2019 intercessory function in dramatic ways. In 1 Kings 22:19\u201323, we see the members of God\u2019s heavenly host debating how Ahab would best be led to his death after God had decreed it was time for the wicked king to go. One of the heavenly spirits comes up with a good strategy, and God approves it. In other places, decrees handed down by \u201cthe Most High\u201d also are described as decrees of the watchers, the holy ones (Dan 4:13, 17, 24).
\nThe ultimate significance of all this is found in the cross, which transforms the entire concept of advocacy before God. The question in Job 5:1 (\u201cTo which of the holy ones will you turn?\u201d) presumes that, if Job wants justice, he must get it from God, and that his case must be mediated by God\u2019s agents. The same thought is expressed later in the book: \u201cIf there be for [a man] an angel, a mediator, one of the thousand, to declare to man what is right for him \u2026\u201d (33:23). This is the backdrop for Jesus\u2019 statement about \u201cguardian\u201d angels and children: \u201cI tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven\u201d (Matt 18:10).
\nThings are different now. Because of what Jesus did on the cross, we have direct access to God (Heb 4:16) through our new advocate, Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1)\u2014the only mediator between God and humankind (1 Tim 2:5).<\/p>\n
30<\/p>\n
Jurassic Bible?<\/p>\n
In the summer of 2015, I saw the movie Jurassic World, the latest installment of the Jurassic Park franchise based on the Michael Crichton novel by that name. The novel and the films center around the idea of bringing dinosaurs back from extinction by means of genetic engineering. It\u2019s a fascinating premise, especially since some paleontologists and geneticists are working on real-world procedures for accomplishing the feat. You can get a glimpse of the real science behind this work in the book How to Build a Dinosaur by Jack Horner, the paleontologist who partly inspired the film version of Dr. Alan Grant in Jurassic Park.1
\nOne of the more interesting background elements in Horner\u2019s book is the story of Dr. Mary Schweitzer, who now teaches at North Carolina State University. When she began her journey into what would become her career, Schweitzer was a substitute teacher and mother of three. She gained Horner\u2019s permission to audit his vertebrate paleontology class at Montana State. The rest is history. Schweitzer got hooked and soon became Horner\u2019s prot\u00e9g\u00e9, earning a PhD in biology. She is now world-famous for discovering soft tissue in dinosaur bones that were 68 million years old. Young earth creationists thrilled to the discovery, touting it as incontrovertible proof that the earth is actually only thousands of years old, not millions since (they argue) soft tissue could never have survived that long.
\nThere\u2019s just one problem with this picture. Schweitzer is an evangelical Christian\u2014and she doesn\u2019t agree with the young earth creationists\u2019 use of her research. By her own testimony, she learned that a lot of what she\u2019d heard in church about her field and about scientists wasn\u2019t true. But the experience didn\u2019t harm her faith; it made it stronger. Schweitzer is now an old earth creationist. This is no secret in the paleontological community. Her faith is as well-known as her discovery. Schweitzer is living proof that serious Christians can be serious scientists.
\nMary Schweitzer is also living proof that honesty and integrity in letting the Bible be what it is and doing science matter. She isn\u2019t disputing the science behind the age of the bones she works on. She knows her field as well as anyone in the world. She isn\u2019t pretending that we need a young earth to believe in the authority of Scripture. She understands that the Bible is an ancient work inspired by God not to give us science, but to give us truth about things that can\u2019t be put under a microscope, like the spiritual world, our spiritual need, and our spiritual destiny if we believe God\u2019s plan for salvation. Those truths transcend science and aren\u2019t dependent on it. The Bible has a pre-scientific cosmology because God chose writers who lived in a pre-scientific age. He knew that would be no obstacle to communicating what he wanted communicated.
\nSchweitzer\u2019s testimony is useful for framing another example of how the Bible gets interpreted out of context to address a modern controversy: the teaching that there are dinosaurs in the Bible. The alleged evidence comes in the form of words like Leviathan (lwytn; Ps 104:26), Rahab (rhb; Isa 51:9), and Tannin, meaning \u201csea monster\u201d or \u201cdragon\u201d (tnyn; Gen 1:21). This flawed notion isn\u2019t as disastrous as the \u201cBible teaching\u201d that arose to account for newly discovered races from the 16th century onward that produced \u201cbiblical\u201d racism. No one is going to be enslaved or die because people believe it. Its harm is less discernible. It gets filed with other ideas that are falsifiable and, once Christians learn that it isn\u2019t true, their faith in the Bible\u2019s inspiration will be damaged when it doesn\u2019t need to be.
\nHow is this idea falsifiable? Context. As the Lexham Bible Dictionary article on \u201cLeviathan\u201d notes:<\/p>\n
Leviathan is mentioned by name six times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 3:8; 41:1; Pss 74:14; 104:26; Isa 27:1). Most of these passages assert or allude to Yahweh\u2019s power and control over the sea monster. The mythological background of the deity battling and defeating a sea monster (i.e., the Chaoskampf [\u201cchaos struggle\u201d] motif) is most evident in Psa 74:14 and Isa 27:1.\u2026 The mythological background of the Bible\u2019s references to Leviathan became apparent with the discovery of Ugaritic references to a sea monster called \u201cLitan\u201d (ltn).2<\/p>\n
The Baal Cycle from Ugarit offers particularly precise parallels, as illustrated further in the same Bible dictionary article:<\/p>\n
The Baal Epic recounts how the storm god Baal displaced El as the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon. The story involves Baal defeating Yam, the sea god.\u2026 In this exchange, Mot refers to Baal\u2019s defeat of Litan (or Leviathan), apparently equating Yam and Litan (KTU 1.5, col. i, lines 1\u20138).\u2026<\/p>\n
When you killed Litan, the Fleeing Serpent,
\nAnnihilated the Twisty Serpent,
\nThe Potentate with Seven Heads,
\nThe heavens grew hot, they withered.
\nBut let me tear you to pieces,
\nLet me eat flanks, innards, forearms.
\nSurely you will descend into Divine Mot\u2019s throat,
\nInto the gullet of El\u2019s Beloved, the Hero.<\/p>\n
The description of Litan in the first lines of this tablet from the Baal Epic use almost the exact words as the description of Leviathan in Isa 27:1.3<\/p>\n
There are many additional parallels in ancient texts from Ugarit and elsewhere that illustrate the mythological connotations for those biblical terms.4 The point I\u2019m making here is that Leviathan and other \u201cdinosaurs\u201d are well-known mythological figures from uninspired texts outside the Bible contemporary with the biblical world. Pagan texts have their gods defeating these creatures to show their superiority or assert that their gods brought order over chaos at creation. But the Baal myth isn\u2019t literally true. Baal didn\u2019t really battle a dinosaur and become the god of all gods. These creatures are metaphors for the forces of chaos. Psalms 74:12\u201314 and 89:9\u201311 use this same metaphor to argue that it was Yahweh who subdued Leviathan \/ the sea dragon \/ Rahab to bring about creation order.5 The point of these passages isn\u2019t that God was killing literal dinosaurs to transform the formless and empty world at creation. Rather, it was a polemic strategy to assert that Yahweh\u2014not Baal or any other deity in the ancient world\u2014was the Lord of creation and Most High God. Interpreting these terms in their original context means we don\u2019t have to fabricate \u201cbiblical meaning\u201d to defend the Bible.<\/p>\n
31<\/p>\n
Proverbs: The Wisdom of Egypt?<\/p>\n
Follow sound advice when you find it\u2014that\u2019s the message the writer of Proverbs 22\u201323 wants his audience to ponder. He doesn\u2019t just tell his audience to \u201chear the words of the wise,\u201d though (22:17). He fulfills his own advice through literary means. In composing the passage, the writer draws on a piece of ancient Near Eastern literature: an Egyptian work known as the Instruction of Amenemope. This work, composed during the Ramesside period of the New Kingdom (ca. 1300\u20131000 BC), pre-dates the era of Solomon.
\nThe Instruction of Amenemope, which was part of the ancient Egyptian wisdom genre of \u201cinstruction,\u201d was likely written by a scribe named Amenemope for instructing his own son. It was common for biblical writers to draw off the literary output of their neighbors in various ways. However, the writer of Proverbs doesn\u2019t just echo the words and wisdom of an Egyptian sage. He directs his readers to fear Yahweh, a feature of wise living that set Israelites apart from any other people group (Prov 1:7; 9:10).
\nHere is how Proverbs 22\u201323 compares with the ancient Egyptian work:<\/p>\n
Proverbs
\nContent\/Theme
\nAmenemope1
\nIncline your ear, and hear the words of the wise,
\nand apply your heart to my knowledge,
\nfor it will be pleasant if you keep them within you, if all of them are ready on your lips.
\n(22:17\u201318)
\nAppeal to be heard
\nGive your ears, hear the sayings
\nGive your heart to understand them;
\nIt profits to put them in your heart
\n(III, 9\u201311)
\nHave I not written for you thirty sayings
\nof counsel and knowledge (22:20)
\nFollow these 30 wise sayings
\nLook to these thirty chapters;
\nThey inform, they educate;
\nThey are the foremost of all books
\n(XXVII, 7\u20138)
\nDo not rob the poor, because he is poor,
\nor crush the afflicted at the gate
\n(22:22)
\nDon\u2019t rob the poor and afflicted
\nBeware of robbing a wretch,
\nOf attacking a cripple
\n(IV, 4\u20135)
\nMake no friendship with a man given to anger,
\nnor go with a wrathful man,
\n(22:24)
\nDon\u2019t make friends of hotheaded, violent people
\nDo not befriend the heated man,
\nNor approach him for conversation.
\n(XI, 13\u201314)
\nDo not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set.
\n(22:28)
\nDo not move an ancient landmark
\nor enter the fields of the fatherless,
\nfor their Redeemer is strong; he will plead their cause against you.
\n(23:10\u201311)
\nDon\u2019t move property markers
\nDo not move the markers on the borders of fields,
\nNor shift the position of the measuring-cord.
\nNor encroach on the boundaries of a widow.
\n(VII, 12\u201314)
\nWhen you sit down to eat with a ruler,
\nobserve carefully what is before you,
\nand put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite.
\nDo not desire his delicacies, for they are deceptive food.
\n(23:1\u20133)
\nDine with political rulers with caution
\nDo not eat in the presence of an official
\nAnd then set your mouth before him.
\nIf you are sated pretend to chew; content yourself with your saliva.
\nLook at the bowl that is before you,
\nAnd let it serve your needs.
\n(XXIII, 13\u201318)
\nDo not toil to acquire wealth;
\nbe discerning enough to desist.
\nWhen your eyes light on it, it is gone,
\nfor suddenly it sprouts wings,
\nflying like an eagle toward heaven.
\n(23:4\u20135)
\nWealth is fleeting
\nDo not strain to seek increase;
\nWhat you have, let it suffice you.
\nIf riches come to you by theft,
\nThey will not stay the night with you.
\nComes day they are not in your house,
\nTheir place is seen but they\u2019re not there;
\nEarth opened its mouth, leveled them, swallowed them.\u2026
\nThey made themselves wings like geese, and flew away to the sky.
\n(IX, 14\u2013X, 5)<\/p>\n
Wisdom literature across the ancient Near East had a similar orientation toward instructing people on how to get along with others in society. Oftentimes, that advice arises from human experience and observation and proves relevant outside its original context because societies share similar experiences and settings for human interaction. For example, the advice about showing restraint and caution when dining with rulers applied to the Israelite as much as to the Egyptian (Prov 23:1\u20133; Amenemope XXIII, 13\u201318). We still find value in the book of Proverbs today for its solid ethical advice. The writer of Proverbs 22\u201323 recognized the words of wisdom found in the Instruction of Amenemope applied to his audience as well, though for the Israelite, instruction in wisdom was motivated by a healthy fear of Yahweh (Prov 15:33).<\/p>\n
32<\/p>\n
Heap Burning Coals on Their Heads<\/p>\n
Our culture\u2019s preference for information in 140 characters or fewer is no modern invention. Ancient peoples shared our taste for brevity, as evidenced in the proverbs\u2014short, pithy truisms about life. But brevity has its downsides. Sometimes we need more detail or context to understand a proverb\u2019s true message.
\nProverbs 25:22 is a good example: \u201cFor you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.\u201d Is this proverb Solomon\u2019s idea of \u201can eye for an eye\u201d? I\u2019ve heard more than one sermon that took that angle. Examining the wider context of this passage, however, shows that this is an unfortunate misinterpretation.<\/p>\n
A Rebuttal to Retaliation<\/p>\n
To better understand Proverbs 25:22, we need to read it in the context of the preceding verse:<\/p>\n
If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you. (Prov 25:21\u201322)<\/p>\n
Proverbs 25:21 gives no hint that revenge is an option for the wise person\u2014one who fears the Lord (Prov 1:7; 9:10). Rather, this verse is a rebuttal to retaliation. Instead of suggesting that we seek vengeance, it encourages us to show kindness to our enemy: If he is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him water. This aligns with the wider biblical teachings on the treatment of enemies. For example, consider Proverbs 24:17\u201318:<\/p>\n
Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles, lest the LORD see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him.<\/p>\n
The Old Testament law likewise discourages us from seizing opportunities to harm our enemies: \u201cIf you meet your enemy\u2019s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him\u201d (Exod 23:4). Both verses promote kindness toward enemies and hint that attitudes seeking harm for them are displeasing to God. This is a far cry from an eye-for-an-eye mentality.<\/p>\n
Burning Shame<\/p>\n
Another difficulty in understanding Proverbs 25:22 is the idea of heaping burning coals on someone\u2019s head. This is a foreign concept to modern readers. Cultural context can help here. Some interpreters see the burning coals as a metaphorical reference to an Egyptian custom whereby a person who had been shamed would bear a pan of smoldering coals on top of his head as an outward display of shame and regret.1 Others see the language\u2014which involves burning\u2014as an expression of the inward burning of shame. Proverbs uses the metaphor of burning fire elsewhere to describe the anguish of shame, as in the warnings about infidelity in Proverbs 6:27\u201328:<\/p>\n
Can a man carry fire next to his chest and his clothes not be burned?
\nOr can one walk on hot coals and his feet not be scorched?<\/p>\n
While we can\u2019t be completely sure which image or metaphor is in play, both capture the intent of Proverbs 25:22 well: By treating our enemies with kindness, we will put them to shame. Loving our enemies will make them ashamed of themselves and hopefully move them toward repentance (compare Matt 5:43\u201344). In this way, mercy is the best revenge.<\/p>\n
33<\/p>\n
Denial of the Afterlife<\/p>\n
Ecclesiastes is a difficult book to read, let alone interpret. It\u2019s filled with statements that make you wonder what the writer was thinking. Take Ecclesiastes 9:5, for example:<\/p>\n
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.<\/p>\n
This is just one of several passages in Ecclesiastes acknowledging the inevitability of death.1 But this verse is particularly troublesome. Does it teach that there is no conscious afterlife? Exploring other Old Testament passages about the afterlife can help us understand what the biblical writer was really saying here.<\/p>\n
Looking Outside of Sheol<\/p>\n
Studies of the Old Testament notion of an afterlife are often restricted to passages using the word sheol (the Hebrew word for the realm of the dead).2 This has led to the erroneous conclusion that the OT lacks the notion of a positive, conscious afterlife for believers. But if we expand our focus, we\u2019ll find that it does contain hints of a conscious afterlife.
\nFor instance, when contemplating death, the psalmist says, \u201cNevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand.\u2026 [A]fterward you will receive me to glory.\u2026 God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever\u201d (Ps 73:23\u201324, 26). The idea of \u201cupholding,\u201d which is present in the phrase \u201cholding of the hand,\u201d is elsewhere associated with God\u2019s presence: \u201cBut you have upheld me because of my integrity, and set me in your presence forever\u201d (Ps 41:12). Although we could conclude that the psalmist here is claiming that he\u2019ll live an everlasting life on earth or that the language here is an exaggeration, it\u2019s better to view this passage as expressing hope of everlasting life in the presence of God\u2014a life that transcends this one.
\nThe law\u2019s prohibition against contacting the disembodied (human) dead (Deut 18:11) also provides support for the Old Testament idea of a conscious afterlife. In ancient times it was thought that the dead, as members of the spiritual world, could provide information that was otherwise unobtainable. The Bible prohibits contacting the dead not because doing so was impossible, but because it was possible (1 Sam 28:13); God doesn\u2019t command people to avoid doing things that are impossible. Rather than seeking insight from the dead, the godly were to seek divine knowledge directly from God or through means that God had provided, such as the Urim and Thummim, the ephod, and the prophets.<\/p>\n
Fallen Asleep<\/p>\n
The frequent descriptions of dying as being \u201cgathered\u201d to one\u2019s \u201cpeople\u201d or as having \u201cslept\u201d with one\u2019s \u201cfathers\u201d provides further insight into the Old Testament notion of the afterlife.3 From his deathbed, Jacob told his sons, \u201cI am to be gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite\u201d (Gen 49:29). First Kings 2:10 similarly reads, \u201cThen David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David.\u201d At first glance, the description of the dead as \u201csleeping\u201d appears to suggest an unconscious afterlife. But archaeology demonstrates that references to sleeping actually refer to the posture of the body in burial\u2014not a denial of a conscious afterlife. Archaeological studies of burial practices have also shown that people in the biblical period buried their dead with objects for use in the afterlife.4 This, along with the biblical characters\u2019 requests to be buried with the remains of their family members, strongly suggests that ancient Israelites believed they would share an afterlife with their dead family members.<\/p>\n
Detached, Not Unconscious<\/p>\n
So if Ecclesiastes 9:5 isn\u2019t speaking of the lack of a conscious afterlife, what is it talking about? A parallel passage in 2 Kings 22:20 can help answer that. In this passage, God tells Josiah through the prophetess Huldah: \u201cTherefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes shall not see all the disaster that I will bring upon this place.\u201d Like Ecclesiastes 9:5, this passage speaks of the dead lacking knowledge. But this verse doesn\u2019t say that Josiah, upon death, would know nothing at all\u2014it simply means that he wouldn\u2019t know what was happening on earth. Similarly, Ecclesiastes 9:5 likely refers to the dead being detached from conscious participation in this world, not an unconscious afterlife.<\/p>\n
34<\/p>\n
Solomon\u2019s Bride or Jesus\u2019 Bride?<\/p>\n
The Song of Solomon is one of the most controversial books in the Bible. Most people reading it for the first time wonder how it ever got in the Bible\u2014and why. At least a half dozen explanations for Song of Solomon\u2019s inclusion in the canon have been proposed since ancient times.1 In today\u2019s Christian context, Bible students usually opt for one of two options (or both).
\nMany modern believers consider Song of Solomon to be a celebration of marital intimacy. But this interpretation is easier said than demonstrated. Anyone who has closely read Song of Solomon knows it\u2019s nearly impossible to discern a clear storyline. In addition, a good case can be made that, if you try to read the book chronologically, the lovers engage in sexual intimacy (Song 1:4, 13, 17; 2:4\u20136; 3:4) prior to the wedding night (Song 4:1\u20135:1). Most scholars today see the book as an anthology of love poetry, noting its similarity to ancient poetry of this type\u2014especially Egyptian love poetry.2 So if you\u2019re not married to (pardon the pun) seeing the book as a linear story, you can still embrace it as a celebration of the act of marriage.
\nIn ancient times, the view that the book was about erotic relations (even within marriage) wasn\u2019t the default perspective. In the Judaism of the first few centuries of the Christian era (AD), the view that the book was an allegory about God\u2019s love for Israel\/Jerusalem rose to prominence. That approach ultimately influenced early Christian interpreters to regard the book as an allegory for Christ\u2019s love for his bride, the Church.3 However, in my judgment, this second approach is the least likely to be correct. My skepticism is driven by a simple litmus test: Does a New Testament writer ever quote Song of Solomon to make this point? No. In fact, the Song of Solomon is never quoted in the New Testament.
\nIf Song of Solomon is an allegory for Christ\u2019s love for the Church, the New Testament writers had many opportunities to draw from it. The language of bride and bridegroom appears nearly two dozen times in the New Testament, several of which appear to reference the Church (e.g., Rev 19:7; 21:9). Jesus is referred to as the \u201cbridegroom\u201d (John 3:29; Mark 2:19); the \u201cmarriage supper of the Lamb\u201d (Rev 19:6\u201310) is a clear allusion to the time when believers are finally in Jesus\u2019 presence. In Ephesians 5:22\u201325 Paul specifically uses the relationship of Christ and the Church to talk about marriage:<\/p>\n
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.<\/p>\n
Yet nowhere in this passage\u2014or anywhere else in the NT\u2014do we find imagery from Song of Solomon. The New Testament writers\u2019 decision not to use Song of Solomon demonstrates there is no basis for presuming Song of Solomon is about Christ\u2019s love for his Church. The later Bible interpreters who promoted this view weren\u2019t more in tune with the Spirit than those guided to write the New Testament under inspiration.
\nUltimately, we must remember that, like every other book of the Bible, Song of Solomon was written for us, but not to us. Its meaning isn\u2019t something that only became clear once Christ had come and the Church had been born. Its context wasn\u2019t something far in the future. Rather, the book\u2019s poetic celebration of marital intimacy highlights God\u2019s good gift to those who bear his image.<\/p>\n
35<\/p>\n
Gog of the Supernatural North<\/p>\n
The enigmatic Gog, the terrible invader of Israel (Ezek 38:2\u20133, 6, 15; 39:1\u20132) is one of the more mysterious figures in the Bible. There is no consensus about the identity of Gog. Even ancient sources found him as much a conundrum as we do today.<\/p>\n
Let the Guessing Begin<\/p>\n
There hasn\u2019t been any shortage of conjectures about Gog\u2019s identity. The leading guesses are Gagi, a little-known prince mentioned in Assyrian annals as ruling people in the mountains north of Assyria, and Gyges, the ancient king of Lydia. Both have been rejected by most scholars, mainly because what is known of these figures fails to conform with the details we find in Ezekiel.1
\nLack of a secure historical reference point for Gog has led to speculative identifications from modern history. One of the most widely circulated is that Gog should be associated with Russia\u2014a view that draws on several arguments. Gog is identified in Ezekiel 38:2 as \u201cthe chief prince of Meshech and Tubal\u201d (nesi rosh meshekh wethuval) who comes from \u201cthe uttermost parts of the north\u201d (Ezek 38:15). Meshech and Tubal, it is argued, sound similar to Moscow and Tobolsk, and Russia is certainly far north in relation to the land of Israel. The Hebrew term translated \u201cchief prince,\u201d nesi rosh, was rendered archonta R\u014ds (\u201ccommander of Ros\u201d) in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This translation understand the Hebrew term rosh to be the name of the place Gog ruled, and \u201cRos\u201d sounds like another place name\u2014Russia.
\nBut identifying Gog as Russia is exegetically indefensible. Just because two words sound similar in two different languages doesn\u2019t mean those words have the same meaning. In transliteration, Hebrew yam looks and sounds the same as the English word \u201cyam,\u201d but the former refers to a body of water while the latter describes an edible plant. Hebrew rosh, Greek R\u014ds, and English \u201cRussia\u201d have no relationship to each other. Further, Genesis 10:2 locates Meshech and Tubal in Anatolia (modern Turkey), not Russia (compare Ezek 27:12\u201315).
\nThe main problem with the Russia theory, though, is the fact that nesi rosh should not be understood as \u201ccommander of Ros,\u201d but as either \u201cchief prince\u201d or \u201cthe prince, the chief.\u201d The full phrase identifying Gog (nesi rosh meshekh wethuval) means either the \u201cchief prince of Meshech and Tubal\u201d or \u201cthe prince (that is, the chief) of Meshech and Tubal.\u201d<\/p>\n
A Better Strategy<\/p>\n
Gog is described as an invader from the north (tsaphon). This is an important detail; after all, when Assyria and Babylon destroyed the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, they both invaded from the north. As a result, Israelites feared northern invaders. They also feared the north because it was considered the domain of Baal, whose home was Mount Zaphon (called tsaphanu in Canaanite, the equivalent of Hebrew tsaphon or \u201cnorth\u201d).
\nIt is no wonder, then, that the \u201cking of the north\u201d emerges in the book of Daniel as the antichrist figure (the \u201clittle horn\u201d; Dan 7\u20138). Most scholars agree on the king\u2019s identity at this point, since the exploits of the king of the north in Daniel 11 closely mirror those of the awful tyrant Antiochus IV, a Greek ruler whose kingdom was in Syria and who considered himself an exalted deity. In the second century BC, Antiochus forced Jewish priests to sacrifice unclean animals on the temple altar. Daniel 11:36\u201337 describe Antiochus well: \u201cHe shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods.\u201d
\nBecause of the king of the north, many scholars believe Gog might be another way of describing either Antiochus or the future antichrist who was prefigured by Antiochus. This fits well with the Baal association, since \u201cprince Baal\u201d (baal zebul in Canaanite) served as a title for Satan (beelzebul; Matt 10:25). These links have led some scholars to believe that Gog comes from the ancient Sumerian word g\u00fbg (\u201cdarkness\u201d). It may well be that Ezekiel wasn\u2019t thinking about a historical person when he prophesied about Gog. Instead, he might have envisioned a satanic figure from the dark, supernatural north.<\/p>\n
36<\/p>\n
Filtering God<\/p>\n
The Old Testament tells us that no person can see the face of God and live (Exod 33:20). The New Testament echoes this prohibition (John 1:18). The prophet Hosea, however, seems to disagree. In Hosea 12:3\u20134, the prophet revisits the story of Jacob as told in Genesis:<\/p>\n
In the womb he [Jacob] deceived his brother,
\nand in his manhood he struggled with God.
\nHe struggled with the angel and prevailed;
\nhe pleaded for his mercy.
\nHe met him at Bethel,
\nand there he spoke with him. (LEB)<\/p>\n
If we turn back to Genesis, we find that Jacob \u201cstruggled\u201d (sarah) with \u201ca man\u201d in a physical scuffle (Gen 32:24 LEB). The same Hebrew word is also used in Hosea 12:3 for Jacob\u2019s struggle with God, thereby linking these two passages. As Jacob wrestled the stranger, he came to realize he was struggling with God (elohim) in human form (Gen 32:28). He named the place \u201cPeniel\u201d (meaning, \u201cthe face of God\u201d in Hebrew), expressing amazement that he had been allowed to live (32:30). This incident led Jacob to rededicate himself to God at Bethel (35:1\u20137), where he had first seen God in a vision (28:10\u201322).
\nHosea 12:3\u20134 summarizes this series of events in Jacob\u2019s life and confirms the divine identity of his opponent by saying Jacob \u201cstruggled with God.\u201d But Hosea takes it one step further: Jacob \u201cstruggled with God\u201d and with an angel (mal\u2019ak) during that combat. Yet again, the word \u201cstruggled\u201d is another form of the same Hebrew word (sor).1 Here, Hosea is asserting that a certain angel in the Old Testament was the God of Israel in human form.
\nLater in Genesis, when Jacob was at the end of his life, he blessed the sons of Joseph. In the blessing, Jacob uses the terms for God and angel in parallel as though they are the same being. In Hebrew, the verb translated \u201cmay he bless\u201d is grammatically singular, confirming the writer saw the two terms as referring to the same being.<\/p>\n
The God (elohim) before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked,
\nThe God (elohim) who shepherded me all my life unto this day,
\nThe angel (mal\u2019ak) who redeemed me from all evil,
\nmay he bless the boys. (Gen 48:15\u201316 LEB)<\/p>\n
So, is there a contradiction between the verses in Genesis and Hosea and those in Exodus and the Gospel of John that say people are forbidden from seeing the face of God? The key is in the translation of the Hebrew word used for \u201cface\u201d in these passages. The Hebrew word translated \u201cface\u201d in Exodus 33:20 is panim, which colloquially means God\u2019s presence. Old Testament passages that make this declaration actually state that no one can see the presence of God unveiled. That privilege was reserved for those in heaven\u2014such as Jesus before coming to earth (John 1:18).
\nGod\u2019s presence had to be filtered for humanity. In the Old Testament, God sometimes chose the filter of human form (the angel) so he could speak with people. They saw the face of the angel but were protected from direct contact with the presence of God. In the fullness of time, this was accomplished even more dramatically through the incarnation of Jesus\u2014Immanuel, \u201cGod with us\u201d (Matt 1:23).<\/p>\n
37<\/p>\n
God of Fire and Storm<\/p>\n
God is the central character in many Bible passages. This should come as no surprise to us. How his presence is depicted, however, can be quite unexpected. We typically think of God as an invisible spirit, as Jesus describes him in John 4:24, or as a man, even before Jesus was born (e.g., Gen 18; 28:10\u201322; Exod 23:20\u201323). But Habakkuk pictures him differently:<\/p>\n
God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. His splendor covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. His brightness was like the light; rays flashed from his hand; and there he veiled his power.\u2026 You stripped the sheath from your bow, calling for many arrows. You split the earth with rivers. The mountains saw you and writhed; the raging waters swept on; the deep gave forth its voice; it lifted its hands on high. The sun and moon stood still in their place at the light of your arrows as they sped, at the flash of your glittering spear. (Hab 3:3\u20134, 9\u201311)<\/p>\n
The portrait of God as Divine Warrior in Habakkuk 3 is a theophany\u2014an appearance of God. Old Testament theophanies can be frightening. This particular one harks back to Mount Sinai, where the Israelites witnessed the appalling power and overwhelming glory of God who arrived with \u201cthunders and lightnings and a thick cloud\u201d to speak to Moses and the people (Exod 19:16). The mountain trembled and was \u201cwrapped in smoke\u201d when God descended on it \u201cin fire\u201d (19:18).
\nProphets like Habakkuk who call up the \u201cflashing fiery mountain\u201d imagery wanted their readers to experience the emotion and fear of the Sinai encounter, an event that precipitated the conquering of the promised land. But this military metaphor is not all Habakkuk has in mind. A close look at the weaponry symbolism turns the focus.
\nThe most common type of Old Testament theophany relies on the phenomena of nature\u2014lightning, thunder, dark clouds, flooding, hailstones, and violent winds. To the people of the ancient biblical world, these natural forces were a terrifying mystery. They were also an essential part of survival, since the storms brought life-giving rain and subsequent good crops. Habakkuk 3 contains several \u201cstorm theophany\u201d elements used throughout the Old Testament: God riding on a chariot through the heavens and through thick, dark clouds (Pss 18:11; 104:3)\u2014commanding the winds and sending thunder and \u201carrows\u201d of lightning, which he wields like weapons (Job 36:29\u201330; Ps 77:17\u201318; Zech 9:14). Second Samuel 22 combines all these elements in a similar way:<\/p>\n
He made darkness around him his canopy, thick clouds, a gathering of water. Out of the brightness before him coals of fire flamed forth. The LORD thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered his voice. And he sent out arrows and scattered them; lightning, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen; the foundations of the world were laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils. (2 Sam 22:12\u201316)<\/p>\n
Prophets like Habakkuk wanted to connect their audience to the Sinai encounter; they also wanted to communicate that God is the creator and master of the natural forces that both terrified and sustained them. He can summon the elements\u2014rain, hail or fire\u2014and make the earth tremble and split. The message is simple but profound. God is not only the awesome power behind nature\u2014He is greater than those incomprehensible forces. He can control that power and use it to punish or provide. He can wipe out the enemies of His people with the maelstrom, or throttle that fury to preserve life. When He speaks, we should listen.<\/p>\n
38<\/p>\n
Zechariah\u2019s Divine Messiah<\/p>\n
Jerusalem is under siege. The city is caught in a raging battle against \u201call the nations of the earth\u201d (Zech 12:3). This battle, part of an oracle in the book of Zechariah, is reminiscent of the book of Revelation (Zech 12; compare Rev 16:14; 20:9). Yet, instead of being a dismal scene, the story is one of hope for the people of God, as Yahweh himself declares that he will \u201cseek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem\u201d (Zech 12:9). Amid this Armageddon-like destruction is an allusion to a future, pierced messiah (Zech 12:10; compare John 19:37). This is no ordinary savior.<\/p>\n
And the LORD will give salvation to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not surpass that of Judah. On that day the LORD will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the LORD, going before them. And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. (Zech 12:7\u20139)<\/p>\n
Zechariah 12:8 declares that the \u201chouse of David\u201d\u2014referring to a future king from the royal dynastic line of David\u2014will be \u201clike God, like the angel of the LORD.\u201d To grasp the significance of this verse, we need to recognize the parallelism between God and the angel of the LORD.1 Jewish readers would have known that God and the angel of the LORD are identified with each other in passages throughout the OT. Earlier, I noted how Hosea identified the angel of the LORD with God himself (elohim) on the basis of Genesis.2 Zechariah 12:8 also casts David\u2019s heir as like God (elohim) and as like the angel of the LORD.
\nWanting to identify David\u2019s heir with God and the angel who is God in human form, Zechariah describes this future heir as \u201cgoing before\u201d God\u2019s people into battle and \u201cdestroying all the nations\u201d that threaten Jerusalem (Zech 12:9\u201310). This is precisely the role of the angel of the LORD\u2014the angel in whom the essence of Yahweh himself dwells (see Exod 23:20\u201323).3 In Judges 2:1\u20132, after the death of Joshua, it is the angel of the LORD who, using first person language, appears and claims to have driven out the enemy inhabitants of the promised land (Judg 2:1\u20132). Elsewhere God\u2019s own presence receives this credit (Deut 4:37). God and the angel of the LORD are one\u2014divinely fighting for God\u2019s people.
\nThis angel is God in human form\u2014and the heir of David in Zechariah is identified the same way. The Old Testament prophet not only foresaw a crucified Davidic king, but an heir of David who was God in human form. Remarkably, this identification also shows up in the New Testament, in precisely the same context. Jude 5 tells us that it was \u201cJesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, [and] afterward destroyed those who did not believe.\u201d Jesus, the pierced messiah, is associated with the angel of the LORD. And he is no ordinary savior.4<\/p>\n
Part Three<\/p>\n
New Testament<\/p>\n
39<\/p>\n
Mark\u2019s Use of Isaiah<\/p>\n
Mark\u2019s opening words are the brilliant launch of a masterful presentation of the arrival and ministry of Jesus. As the re-manifestation of God in the form of a mortal man, he will lead Israel out of bondage and establish an earthly kingdom that will, as the prophets foretold, include all nations of the earth. Mark\u2019s presentation isn\u2019t new, though. Starting with this first citation, Mark models his presentation of Jesus after statements found in Isaiah.<\/p>\n
Mark: Introduction to His Account of Jesus
\nMark Announces King and Kingdom
\nIsaiah Speaks to Captive Israel
\nMark 1:3\u20134
\n(introducing John the Baptist)
\n3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness: \u2018Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,\u2019 4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness …
\nIsaiah 40:3
\n(introducing the herald of Yahweh\u2019s return)
\n3 A voice cries: \u201cIn the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.\u201d
\nMark 1:9\u201311
\n(baptism of Jesus)
\n9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descend[ed] on him \u2026
\nIsaiah 9:1; 64:1; and 42:1
\n(the Spirit-anointed Servant arrives)
\n9:1 \u2026 in the latter time [God] has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations \u2026
\n64:1 Oh that you [God] would rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains might quake at your presence \u2026
\n42:1 Behold, my servant \u2026 I have put my Spirit upon him \u2026
\nMark 1:12\u201313
\n(Jesus suffers in the wilderness)
\n12 The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. 13 And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild animals \u2026
\nIsaiah 32:14\u201316
\n(Israel is desolate, awaiting rebirth)
\n14 For the palace is forsaken, the populous city deserted; the hill and the watchtower will become dens forever \u2026 a pasture of flocks 15 until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field \u2026
\n16 Then justice will dwell in the wilderness \u2026
\nMark 1:14\u201315
\n(Jesus preaches the good news of God\u2019s kingdom)
\n14 \u2026 Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, \u201cThe time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.\u201d
\nIsaiah 52:7; 61:1
\n(the good news of God\u2019s reign)
\n52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, \u201cYour God reigns.\u201d
\n61:1 \u2026 the LORD has anointed me to bring good news \u2026<\/p>\n
Mark\u2019s use of Isaiah to introduce Jesus as the returning Yahweh is hard to miss\u2014if we know what we\u2019re looking at. And he continues tracking with Isaiah through the rest of his account.<\/p>\n
Mark: The Purpose and Fact of Jesus\u2019 Suffering and Death
\nMark 10:45
\n(purpose)
\n45 \u201cFor even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.\u201d
\nIsaiah 53:11
\n(purpose of the Servant\u2019s suffering)
\n11 \u2026 by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
\nMark 10:33\u201334
\n(suffering and death)
\n34 \u201cAnd they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.\u201d
\nIsaiah 50:6; 53:12
\n(Servant\u2019s suffering and death)
\n50:6 I gave my back to those who strike \u2026 I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting.
\n53:12 \u2026 he poured out his soul to death \u2026
\nMark 11:17; 13:10
\n(extent of the gospel)
\n11:17 And he was teaching them and saying to them, \u201cIs it not written, \u2018My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations\u2019? But you have made it a den of robbers.\u201d
\n13:10 \u201cAnd the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations.\u201d
\nIsaiah 56:6\u20137
\n(vision of the future kingdom)
\n6 And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD \u2026 to love the name of the LORD \u2026 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mark\u2019s use of Isaiah is stunning, but not unique. Each gospel writer created a deliberate, strategic work with its own agenda to present Jesus as the fulfillment of God\u2019s Old Testament promises. For Mark, Isaiah\u2019s prophecies were the perfect vehicle for presenting the good news of Jesus.<\/p>\n
40<\/p>\n
Demons, Swine, and Cosmic Geography<\/p>\n
He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. (Mark 5:3\u20135)<\/p>\n
This vivid description begins one of the most dramatic stories in the Gospels\u2014the account of Jesus\u2019 exorcism of the man possessed by Legion. The story and its imagery are so unique that scholars have debated Mark\u2019s motive for including it in his Gospel. One theory is that Mark wanted to give hope to people suffering from mental illness. While the story does describe the man as being restored to \u201chis right mind\u201d after the exorcism (5:15), this modern reading is undermined by the clarity of the account itself. The man was possessed by demons with whom Jesus conversed (5:6\u201310). The text explicitly says that demons caused the swine to run to their deaths in the sea (5:11\u201313). This emphasis on demons leaves little room for another interpretation.
\nOther scholars believe that the story is a cryptic call for political liberation. The support for this interpretation is wrapped up in the terms Mark uses: The name Legion (legi\u014dn) is a direct reference to Roman forces, and the term used for the swine (agel\u0113, \u201cherd\u201d) is also used of Roman recruits. However, at this time Jews wouldn\u2019t have been earnestly seeking Roman expulsion from Gentile areas, so it\u2019s difficult to see this being Mark\u2019s intention.
\nUltimately, these interpretations miss the cosmic-symbolic messaging of the incident. Immediately before this exorcism, Jesus rebuked the wind and waves as he crossed the Sea of Galilee (4:35\u201340)\u2014an act that cast him as the God of the Old Testament who had power over the sinister forces of cosmic chaos (Ps 89:8\u20139).1 Prior to Mark 5, Jesus had restricted his preaching and miraculous displays of power to a Jewish audience. He was, after all, Israel\u2019s Messiah. His focus changes in 5:1 when he deliberately enters the country of the Gerasenes\u2014Gentile territory. The mention of swine further associates this region with Gentiles (Lev 11:7).
\nMark\u2019s report of Legion\u2019s question\u2014\u201cWhat have you to do with me?\u201d (Mark 5:7)\u2014creates a connection between Jesus\u2019 entrance into Gentile land and his earlier ministry to the Jews. Legion\u2019s question echoes the cries of the unclean spirits Jesus cast out in Mark 1:24 when he was in the Jewish region of Galilee. But there is a subtle difference between the demons\u2019 exclamations\u2014one that identifies Mark\u2019s theological point in the Legion account: In Mark 1:24, the unclean spirits address their foe as \u201cJesus of Nazareth.\u201d But in 5:7, Legion identifies Jesus as \u201cSon of the Most High.\u201d The title \u201cMost High\u201d reflects the Old Testament theology of cosmic geography. Recall that in Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139, the \u201cMost High\u201d had disinherited the nations of the world, assigned them to the dominion of supernatural sons of God, and then created Israel as his own inheritance.2 Those sons of God rebelled and became corrupt (Ps 82:1\u20134), throwing God\u2019s order into chaos (Ps 82:5).
\nWhat we have in Mark 5 is more than an exorcism and suicidal swine. We have a strong theological message. The Messiah, the Son of God, is not only here to redeem Israel. He is here to begin repossessing the Gentile nations as his own. Reclaiming the nations will require the defeat of the powers of darkness. Jesus\u2019 exorcism of Legion begins that campaign\u2014something he\u2019ll complete when he returns (Ps 82:6\u20138; Isa 34:1\u20134).<\/p>\n
41<\/p>\n
Strange and Powerful Signs<\/p>\n
The Gospels variously record several unusual events that occurred in conjunction with the death and resurrection of Jesus: the tearing of the temple veil, an earthquake, the opening of local tombs and the resurrection of their occupants, and darkness covering the land (Matt 27:51\u201356; Mark 15:38\u201341; Luke 23:44\u201349). Why did the writers include these details? Although interpreters have suggested theories for each occurrence, these events are best understood as a whole, collectively presenting a picture of God\u2019s judgment of a world thrown into chaos at the fall, as well as affirming the promise of Edenic restoration.
\nMost commentators consider the tearing of the veil and its related darkness and earthquake to signify that the old system of law and sacrifice had become obsolete with the death and subsequent resurrection of the Messiah. While this understanding would become evident later in the history of the early church, it is not at all clear that people in the first century would have interpreted these strange occurrences in this way. It is more likely that those who experienced what the gospel writers describe would have thought of the cosmic forces of chaos\u2014the disorder that is implied before God\u2019s act of creation in Genesis 1 and that overwhelmed the world after rebellion in Eden.
\nThe formless and empty earth is characterized by darkness (Gen 1:2), as is the realm of the dead (Job 10:21; 17:11\u201316; 38:17; Ecc 11:8). The shaking of the foundations of the earth is a familiar description of the world not being the way it was intended at creation (Ps 104:5), and the shaking indicates God\u2019s judgment on that disorder (Pss 18:7, 15; 82:5). The first-century Jewish historian Josephus noted that, for many Jews, the design and partitioning of the tabernacle tent (and so the temple) was the pattern of the ordered universe.1 Consequently, when darkness, earthquake, and the tearing of the veil accompanied the death of Jesus, Jews of his day would have feared the end of the world\u2014the victory of chaos. The signs three days later would have alerted them that a new age was at hand.
\nMatthew\u2019s strange account of tombs opening and raised bodies of the \u201csaints\u201d (literally, \u201choly ones\u201d) coming forth would have drawn people\u2019s attention to Old Testament passages that foretold of resurrection at the day of the Lord\u2014the time when God would set all things right (Dan 12:2\u20133; Isa 26:19; Ezek 37:1\u201310).2 The result of God\u2019s judgment \u201con the great day of God the Almighty\u201d (Rev 16:14 ESV) would be a reset for the whole world\u2014a return to the unspoiled perfection of Eden, this time on a global scale (Rev 21\u201322). The new earth will have no darkness (Rev 21:25; 22:5), and death will be banished (Rev 21:4)\u2014ideas familiar to Jews of Jesus\u2019 day (Hos 13:14; Isa 60:19\u201320).
\nOf course, Jesus\u2019 resurrection is the ultimate sign of the world\u2019s redemption and the linchpin of the Christian faith. Because Christ was raised, we have assurance that we will be raised (1 Cor 15:20\u201322). However, the significance of Jesus\u2019 resurrection is not limited to being the solution for human mortality. As the second or \u201clast\u201d Adam, Jesus reverses the first Adam\u2019s failure in Eden (1 Cor 15:45\u201348). Jesus\u2019 resurrection is frequently linked with the overthrow of the principalities and powers that govern the nations disinherited by God since Babel (Deut 32:8\u20139; Col 2:13\u201315; 1 Cor 14:20\u201328; Eph 1:15\u201323), bringing the Gentiles back into God\u2019s family through the gospel. The events that accompany Jesus\u2019 death\u2014darkness, the earthquake, the torn veil, the opened tombs\u2014set the stage for the restorative power of his resurrection, signaling the return of Eden on a global scale.<\/p>\n
42<\/p>\n
Is Exorcism for Everyone?<\/p>\n
A recent survey of one thousand American adults found that more than half believe that demons can possess people.1 The New Testament of course contains clear testimony of demon-possession and Jesus\u2019 power to exorcise demons. Mark\u2019s Gospel has one of the most dramatic accounts\u2014the confrontation between Jesus and Legion (Mark 5:1\u201320).2 While this episode in the ministry of Jesus is well known, something else the Lord says about demons is equally remarkable but gets much less attention:<\/p>\n
And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. (Mark 16:17\u201318)<\/p>\n
I know I\u2019m a believer; I\u2019m trusting in Jesus\u2019 work on the cross on my behalf for my eternal destiny. But I\u2019ve never cast out a demon, and I don\u2019t want to test whether I\u2019m immune to poison or venomous snakes. Is this passage really saying that every Christian should be exorcizing demons, handling serpents, and ingesting lethal toxins? Some Christians think so, but Scripture itself indicates that this is a misreading of the passage.
\nMany scholars view Mark 16 as foreshadowing miraculous acts that the apostles would perform after Jesus\u2019 resurrection\u2014signs that validated their message about Jesus. In Acts 28:3\u20136, Paul was bitten by a viper, but the poisonous venom had no effect on him. The book of Acts also reports in very broad terms that the apostles performed miraculous signs and wonders (14:3; 19:11, 12, 17; 28:8), including exorcism of demons (5:12\u201313). It\u2019s not unreasonable to presume that resistance to poisons also might have been part of this picture (although it is not mentioned specifically). In fact, ancient Jewish texts allude to worshipers of God being protected from poisoned food.3
\nThe events of Acts are important for understanding Mark 16:17\u201318. When these gifts of power are mentioned, they are connected to the apostles. We know as well that the impartation of the Holy Spirit\u2014the source of spiritual gifts\u2014came by the apostles laying hands on believers (Acts 8:17\u201319; Rom 1:11). One such instance involved the gift of tongues (Acts 19:6).
\nIn fact, the connection between spiritual gifts and the miraculous abilities described in Mark 16:17\u201318 is the key to parsing what Jesus said\u2014and to understanding what\u2019s expected of each believer. Notice what Paul wrote to the Corinthians:<\/p>\n
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Cor 12:27\u201330)<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s questions here are rhetorical: By God\u2019s design, believers receive different spiritual gifts. If not all believers are given the gift of tongues\u2014which Jesus mentions alongside exorcism in Mark 16:17\u201318\u2014then we should not expect all believers to have the duty or giftedness to cast out demons. Jesus\u2019 words hint that the Spirit will empower those whom he chooses for such tasks. Threats against believers\u2014spiritual or physical\u2014do not impede the advance of Christ\u2019s kingdom.<\/p>\n
43<\/p>\n
The Word Was God<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.\u201d John 1:1 is, by far, one of the most familiar verses in the Bible. We know \u201cthe Word\u201d speaks of Jesus (John 1:14), but where did John get the idea that \u201cthe Word\u201d could refer to God as a person?
\nThe answer lies partly in the translation John used. While John used the Greek word logos when referring to \u201cthe Word,\u201d he himself was likely influenced by Aramaic translations of the Old Testament.1 In Jesus\u2019 day, Aramaic was the Jewish people\u2019s native language. While the Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew into Greek, the language of the wider Gentile world, it was also translated into Aramaic. These Aramaic translations are called Targums. One specific Targum of the Pentateuch, Targum Onqelos, was sanctioned by Jewish religious authorities for use in the synagogue.2
\nThe Targums telegraph the idea of God as \u201cWord\u201d in many places\u2014in vivid, sometimes startling ways. Many Jews of John\u2019s day would have been familiar with the idea. The Aramaic term for \u201cword,\u201d memra, was often used as another way to refer to God. Consider Numbers 14:11 in the ESV and from Targum Neofiti, noting the words in bold:3<\/p>\n
English Standard Version
\nTargum Neofiti
\nAnd the LORD said to Moses,
\nAnd the LORD said to Moses,
\n\u201cHow long will this people despise me?
\nAnd how long will they not believe
\n\u201cHow long will they not believe
\nin me,
\nin the name of my Word
\nin spite of all the signs
\nin spite of all the signs of my miracles
\nthat I have done among them?\u201d
\nthat I have done among them?\u201d<\/p>\n
In the Targum rendering, the LORD refers to himself as \u201cmy Word,\u201d using the Aramaic term memra. John calls Jesus \u201cthe Word made flesh\u201d in John 1:14, possibly alluding to Numbers 14:11. He does this because the translations he had heard so many times in the synagogue had taught him that God was the Word\u2014the memra\u2014and he believed Jesus was God. John even echoes the Targum\u2019s version of Numbers 14:11 later on:<\/p>\n
When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him. (John 12:36\u201337)<\/p>\n
Memra is used hundreds of times in the Targums to describe God, often in passages where the language presumes God is present in physical, human form: \u201cAnd they heard the sound of the memra of the Lord God walking in the garden\u201d (Targum Neofiti Gen 3:8).4
\nBecause of the Targums, Jews in the days of Jesus and John would have understood the notion that God could come to them in human form. John believed that was exactly what he and the disciples had witnessed in Jesus, so it was natural for him to refer to Jesus as the Word. John wrote his gospel in Greek, but his theology was Jewish, conveyed to him through Aramaic. Therefore, both Jews and non-Jewish people got the point in unmistakable terms: The Word of the Old Testament had been made flesh (John 1:14) and walked among us.<\/p>\n
44<\/p>\n
The Table of Nations and Acts 2<\/p>\n
Millions of Christians each year remember the day of Pentecost on the church calendar. Although Pentecost is one of the more familiar passages in the New Testament outside the Gospels, the Old Testament context of Acts 2 is largely unknown.<\/p>\n
Overview<\/p>\n
The Old Testament backdrop for the events of Acts 2 is the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 and its relationship to Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139.1 The Deuteronomy passage alludes to Yahweh\u2019s dispersal of the nations at Babel and describes his disinheriting or rejecting those nations. According to Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139 (and its parallel, Deut 4:19\u201320) Yahweh, the God of Israel, removed the nations from direct relationship with himself and gave them over to the administration of other, lesser gods (elohim). From that point forward, Yahweh would be in direct relationship exclusively with Israel:<\/p>\n
When the Most High apportioned the nations as an inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he established the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But Yahweh\u2019s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance. (Deut 32:8\u20139)2<\/p>\n
Many English translations\u2014based on the traditional Hebrew text of the Old Testament\u2014read \u201csons of Israel\u201d or \u201cchildren of Israel\u201d here instead of \u201csons of God.\u201d The phrase \u201csons of God\u201d is drawn from manuscripts of Deuteronomy 32 found among the Dead Sea Scrolls\u2014scrolls much older than the traditional \u201creceived\u201d text.3
\nDeuteronomy 32:8\u20139 is fundamental for understanding the worldview of Old Testament Israel. These two verses reveal the existence of the foreign divine beings and assert their inferiority to Yahweh. Israelites, in other words, believed that Yahweh, their own supreme, unique God, sentenced the nations and their gods to each other. At Babel, God, like a father dismissing and disinheriting his children, judges all the nations for their disobedience (Gen 11:1\u20139). Then, in the very next chapter, he calls Abraham (Gen 12:1\u20133), in effect starting over to create an earthly human family for himself. The rest of the Old Testament assumes Israel\u2019s unique relationship to Yahweh. Eventually, however, Israel\u2019s unfaithfulness led Yahweh to scattered the people among the other nations\u2014effectively dismissing them in a manner reminiscent of the nations at Babel. But God did not simply undo his plans\u2014Israel and its people were to be the conduit through whom Yahweh would progressively reclaim all the Gentile nations, a movement we know as the church\u2014which in turn would bring Jews (Israelites) back to God.<\/p>\n
Acts 2, the Tower of Babel, and the Table of Nations<\/p>\n
Consider Acts 2 against the backdrop of this worldview:<\/p>\n
When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided [diamerizo] tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered [synche\u014d], because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, \u201cAre not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians\u2014we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.\u201d (Acts 2:1\u201311)<\/p>\n
The two words in bold are crucial for understanding the underlying Old Testament significance of Acts 2 and the events of Pentecost. The Greek word synche\u014d, translated \u201cbewildered,\u201d is used in the Septuagint version of the Tower of Babel story in Gen 11:7: \u201cCome, and let us go down there to confound [synche\u014d] their language\u201d (LES). Both Acts 2:6 and the Septuagint version of Genesis 11:7 link synche\u014d with confusion over human speech. In Genesis 11, of course, the context is the division of the nations (and their languages) at Babel. The other important Greek word in this passage from Acts is diameriz\u014d, translated \u201cdivided.\u201d That term is appears in the other major passage that refers to the events at Babel\u2014the Septuagint of Deut 32:8:<\/p>\n
When the Most High distributed [diameriz\u014d] nations, as he scattered the descendants of Adam, he set up boundaries for the nations according to the number of the angels of God. (LES)<\/p>\n
These two terms are likely allusions to the story of Babel, so Luke is drawing on the Septuagint of Gen 11 and Deut 32 to connect the events of Acts 2 with the imagery of Babel and the Table of Nations. In Acts 2, Jews from around the known world were present in Jerusalem on Pentecost; many of them heard the good news in their native languages, a sign that the gospel was going to spread through these men, beginning at Jerusalem (compare Acts 1:8). The work of Jesus was thus going to overcome the division of humanity into many languages and nations at Babel.
\nLuke\u2019s list of nations in Acts 2, however, is perhaps the most startling aspect of the passage. Genesis 10 provides the context for understanding this list just as Gen 11 serves as the necessary background for the symbolic reversal of the confusion of language in Acts 2. The nations listed in Gen 10 represent the known world\u2014a spreading out of humanity that resulted from God\u2019s dispersing in Gen 11. At the time Genesis 10 was written, the known world included Mesopotamia, the lands beyond it to the east, Asia Minor, the Levant (Syria and Canaan), Arabia, Egypt and North Africa, the areas of eastern Africa along the coast of the Red Sea, and a few other points around the Mediterranean Sea. Tarshish was the westernmost point of the known world.
\nWhile the places named in Acts 2 and in the Table of Nations from Genesis are different, the lists serve the same purpose\u2014to outline the extent of the known world of their times. In Acts 1:8, the disciples are commissioned to take the gospel to the whole world\u2014\u201cYou will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.\u201d In the first century AD, they likely thought of the end of civilization\u2014the furthest extent of Roman rule\u2014as the \u201cend of the earth.\u201d
\nThrough the events at Pentecost, three thousand Jews came to believe in Jesus (Acts 2:41); those converts returned to their homelands carrying the message of the gospel and furthering God\u2019s plan to reclaim the nations dispossessed at Babel.<\/p>\n
45<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s Missionary Goals<\/p>\n
The book of Acts ends in Rome with Paul imprisoned and ready to appeal to Caesar, but Rome does not represent the culmination of God\u2019s plan to reclaim the disinherited nations.1 Genesis 10 lists one location farther west than Rome\u2014in fact, it\u2019s the westernmost point in the list\u2014Tarshish. Tarshish was a Phoenician colony on the southern coast of what would become Spain (Spania).2 We know from Paul\u2019s letter to the Romans that he intended to go to Spain after his Roman imprisonment:3<\/p>\n
24 I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while.\u2026 28 When therefore I have completed this and have delivered to them what has been collected, I will leave for Spain by way of you. (Rom 15:24, 28)<\/p>\n
The early church father Clement reports that Paul did, indeed, reach \u201cthe limits of the west\u201d as the culmination of his evangelistic journeys:<\/p>\n
Paul pointed the way to the prize of endurance. Having borne chains seven times, having been exiled, having been stoned, having been a preacher in both the east and in the west, he received the noble fame of his faith. Having taught righteousness to the whole world and having come to the limits of the west and having given his testimony before the rulers, thus he was set free from the world and was taken up to the holy place, having become the greatest example of endurance.4<\/p>\n
Only when Paul preached the gospel in Spain\u2014reaching Tarshish, the westernmost part of the known world\u2014would his life\u2019s mission be finished. Paul\u2019s mission as apostle to the Gentiles meant he was apostle to the disinherited nations; his drive to reach Spain suggests he was actually conscious that his missionary efforts for Jesus were part of a divine plan to reverse the disinheritance of those nations at Babel. Paul reveals this understanding in Romans 11:25 when he refers to \u201cthe fullness of the Gentiles\u201d coming in. This phrase is an allusion to Old Testament passages describing the nations as one day returning to worship Yahweh (e.g., Isa 2:2\u20135; 11:10; 66:18\u201320; Mic 4:1\u20134).
\nThroughout his letters, Paul quotes or alludes to the Old Testament to show that the long-promised day of salvation was happening now, during his lifetime. In the Old Testament, the divine plan of Jewish belief in Jesus as Messiah was preceded by something Paul referred to as \u201cthe fullness of the Gentiles\u201d (Rom 11:25). Paul makes it clear in Romans 9\u201311 that Gentile inclusion in the people of God was made possible by a temporary hardening of heart among the Jews (Rom 11:25\u201326). The key to undoing this hardening was to accomplish the mission of Gentile evangelism. Only then would Paul\u2019s passionate longing for his own Jewish brethren to believe in Jesus come to full fruition (Rom 9:3). Only then would the Deliverer (Jesus) come again from Zion (Rom 11:26). Once the \u201cfullness of the Gentiles\u201d comes in, \u201call Israel will be saved\u201d (Rom 11:25\u201326). But how does the \u201cfullness of the Gentiles\u201d relate to Tarshish or Spain? Isaiah 66:18\u201320 prophesies that Yahweh would gather all nations to see his glory. To those nations, God would give a \u201csign\u201d of his promised salvation. That sign would be delivered by survivors from the Jewish exile, sent by God into those far-off nations. The lands of Tarshish, Put, Lud, Tubal, and Javan are specifically mentioned. Those Jewish emissaries would declare Yahweh\u2019s glory among the nations, and the conversion of the Gentiles would also bring the Jews in all those nations to return to worship Yahweh. Paul likely believed the \u201csign\u201d was Jesus (compare Isa 7:14). Paul knew well that the conversion process of Jewish exiles began at Pentecost, where Jews from nations scattered throughout the Mediterranean saw the Spirit act on the disciples, heard the gospel, and believed. They returned to their own countries to spread the word to the Gentiles (see Acts 2).
\nThe final missionary goal for Paul was Spain, the \u201cend of the world\u201d in popular thinking (Rom 15:24). This place appears in the list in Isaiah 66 since Spain is the location of Tarshish (Isa 66:19). When Paul wrote Romans, he knew the gospel had spread to every region mentioned in Isaiah 66\u2014except Tarshish. He believed that his mission, the fullness of the Gentiles, and the salvation of his Jewish brethren, would be fulfilled once he reached Spain.<\/p>\n
46<\/p>\n
Divine Misdirection<\/p>\n
The cross is the central event of the Bible. Without the cross there is no redemption, no reversal of the human condition, no restoration of Eden in a new earth, and no defeat of evil. But how was it that intelligent evil powers\u2014even Satan himself\u2014didn\u2019t figure out what God was up to in sending Jesus? If Satan had discovered God\u2019s plan, he could have attempted to prevent evil powers from bringing Jesus to the cross. The powers of darkness wouldn\u2019t have needed to be stronger than God; they only needed to do nothing.
\nWe read the Gospels with full hindsight. We can\u2019t imagine how the disciples missed what we see about the cross, but the Bible directly says they did. After the resurrection, they needed their minds opened to realize that the Messiah had to suffer, die, and rise again to bring salvation (Luke 24:44\u201347). But they weren\u2019t the only ones in the dark.
\nThe Gospels give no indication that Satan or the demons knew what God\u2019s plan entailed. Demons certainly knew Jesus was the Son of God, but exactly how God\u2019s kingdom would be restored was a mystery hidden \u201cin God\u201d (Matt 4:3\u20136; 8:29; Eph 1:7\u20139; 3:3\u201311). If the disciples didn\u2019t know the plan, then we shouldn\u2019t expect that Satan or the demons would know it either. The powers of darkness are not omniscient\u2014only God is all-knowing. The Apostle Paul explored this subject:<\/p>\n
Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Cor 2:6\u20138)<\/p>\n
The key term here is archont\u014dn, translated \u201crulers.\u201d This term was used widely in Greek literature to refer to human rulers. Paul uses it that way on occasion (e.g., Rom 13:3), but here he has spiritual powers in mind. We know this because he is discussing God himself in the previous verses.
\nPaul is drawing on his knowledge of the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 32:8\u201391 and Daniel 10 inform us that Israel was God\u2019s people, the lone nation aligned with him. The other nations were under spiritual powers as a result of God\u2019s punishment of the rebellion at the Tower of Babel, where the nations were divided (Gen 11:1\u20139). Deuteronomy 32:17 calls these divine beings \u201cdemons\u201d (shedim). Daniel 10:13 uses the term \u201cprince\u201d (sar). Israel is watched over by the archangel Michael, and so he is called Israel\u2019s \u201cprince\u201d (Dan 10:21; 12:1). The Septuagint\u2014the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible frequently used by Paul\u2014translates sar with the Greek term arch\u014dn.2 Elsewhere Paul uses the related term arch\u0113 to refer to these spiritual powers (Eph 6:12). The Gospels refer to Satan himself with this word (Mark 3:22; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11).
\nFrom these passages, a picture emerges of the nations of the world under the dominion of dark powers hostile to God\u2019s plan. God kept his plan hidden for good reason. Had those dark powers known that manipulating people to kill Jesus would initiate the end of their own rule, they never would have done so.
\nGod\u2019s plans are often full of mystery. But the cross\u2014this mystery hidden in God\u2014turned the tables on his evil opponents and turned the course of history. It\u2019s the type of sacrificial love that the dark powers never could have imagined.<\/p>\n
47<\/p>\n
Who is the God of This World?<\/p>\n
We are creatures of habit. If we do something often enough, the \u201cright way\u201d of doing things comes to feel self-evident. The more we hear or read about an idea, the more \u201cobvious\u201d that thing becomes. But not everyone thinks the same way or sees the same thing. This carries over into Bible interpretation. Second Corinthians 4:3\u20134 is a case in point:<\/p>\n
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.<\/p>\n
Many of us would interpret the \u201cgod of this world\u201d as a reference to Satan. After all, Paul mentions Satan in several other places in this letter (2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 12:7). But not all interpreters agree.<\/p>\n
Why God?<\/p>\n
The question of just who is \u201cthe god of this world\u201d is a very old one. The early church fathers Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrosiaster believed Paul was talking about God himself. Their argument was quite straightforward. Only God is truly God of this world or age (the Greek word is ai\u014dn, which can denote an age or era). God is the true God of every age. However, Cyril of Jerusalem and Ambrosiaster favored this interpretation for theological reasons. The Greek word for \u201cgod\u201d is theos. If Satan is called theos in 2 Corinthians 4:4, then it seems to follow that, when Jesus is referred to as theos (Titus 1:3\u20134; John 1:1\u20133, 17\u201318), those verses aren\u2019t referring to him as the true God. Therefore, the early church fathers argued that we shouldn\u2019t see Satan as the \u201cgod of this world\u201d in 2 Cor 4:4; we should interpret the phrase as referring to the one true God. At first it seems unthinkable that the true God would, as 2 Cor 4:3\u20134 says, blind the eyes of unbelievers from embracing Jesus. But elsewhere Paul says that specifically:<\/p>\n
Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, \u201cGod gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day\u201d \u2026 I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. (Rom 11:7\u20138, 25; compare Isa 6:9\u201310)<\/p>\n
But is this judgment, aimed at Israel, what Paul is talking about in 2 Cor 4:3\u20134? It doesn\u2019t seem so, since the comment refers generally to unbelievers in the present age. And that inconsistency is a good reason to reconsider Satan as the god of this world.<\/p>\n
Why Satan?<\/p>\n
If we look at Paul\u2019s use of the word \u201cgod\u201d (theos), we find it isn\u2019t unprecedented for him to use that word to refer to something other than the true God. In Philippians 3:19 Paul says of Jesus\u2019 enemies, \u201ctheir god (theos) is their belly.\u201d Paul uses the term theos to speak of that thing which has controlling power over a person. Also, in 1 Corinthians 8:5, Paul acknowledges that pagans offer sacrifices to other gods (theoi), entities he later refers to as demons (1 Cor 10:19\u201320).
\nPaul uses that language because it comes from the Old Testament (Deut 32:17). He also echoes New Testament descriptions of Satan as the \u201cruler of this world (kosmos)\u201d (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11):<\/p>\n
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. (Eph 2:1\u20132)<\/p>\n
The context of Ephesians 2:1\u20132 is similar to that of 2 Cor 3\u20134: It explains why people do not believe the gospel and even oppose it. Since Paul\u2019s use of theos in Phil 3:19 shows us the term could be used to speak of controlling a dominion, Satan could easily be described with that term because he rules over unbelievers.<\/p>\n
Darkness and Blindness<\/p>\n
There are other contextual clues. The theme of being \u201cin darkness\u201d\u2014a corollary to being spiritually blinded\u2014is specifically associated with Satan and demonic powers (Acts 26:18; Eph 6:12). In addition, spiritual blindness is referred to dozens of times in the New Testament (Eph 5:8, 11; Col 1:13; 1 John 2:11). This is ultimately what makes Satan the better candidate for the \u201cgod of this world.\u201d
\nAfter using the phrase \u201cgod of this world,\u201d Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:6:<\/p>\n
For God, who said, \u201cLet light shine out of darkness,\u201d has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n
Paul contrasts darkness\u2014and hence blindness\u2014with both the glory of God and the person of Jesus. If God himself were the one doing the blinding in this passage, that contrast would make little sense.
\nDisagreements in biblical interpretation are inevitable. Nothing in the context of the Old Testament prevents the conclusion that the \u201cgod of this world\u201d is Satan. Some thinkers in the early church, however, saw things differently.<\/p>\n
48<\/p>\n
New Testament Language of Spiritual Adoption and Sonship<\/p>\n
New Testament writers used the language of divine sonship to describe believers in Jesus. Similarly, the Church, the community carrying on God\u2019s revived kingdom rule on earth, was associated with Israel, God\u2019s earlier kingdom community. Since many believers were Gentiles and not part of the original human family of God (meaning Israel), New Testament writers also described attaining membership as children in God\u2019s family as \u201cadoption.\u201d The New Testament children of God, believers in Jesus, are the spiritual seed of Abraham (Gal 3:7\u20139, 25\u201329).<\/p>\n
The Old Testament Context<\/p>\n
The Old Testament writers use the language of divine sonship in two contexts: referring to heavenly beings, the \u201csons of God\u201d (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Ps 89:6), and referring to human beings, specifically, members of the nation of Israel (Exod 4:22\u201323; Deut 14:1; Isa 1:2; Jer 31:9; Hos 1:10). The Israelite king, as the representative of the nation, is also described as a son of God (Pss 2:7; 89:27).
\nIn the Old Testament, God\u2019s heavenly dwelling was also his headquarters, the place where he met with his council, the members of the heavenly host who served him in the administration of his creation. This is the context for the plural language of Gen 1:26. God created human beings to reflect his image (i.e., represent him) just as the members of his heavenly host did. Heaven would be on earth, administered by all God\u2019s imagers.
\nThe fall disrupted this relationship. Though God promised Eve a human descendant who would undo the effects of sin and restore the relationship between God and his children (Gen 3:15), the early chapters of the Old Testament reveal human resistance to God\u2019s rule. God eventually responded by dispersing the people at Babel (Gen 11:1\u20139), effectually disinheriting them and placing them under the administration of the lesser sons of God or divine council (Deut 32:8\u20139; compare Deut 4:19\u201320).1 This act was a punishment for their rebellion, but the rejection of the nations would not be permanent. God chose to work through Abram and his offspring to raise up new children of God who would restore his rule on earth and be the means of blessing to the disinherited nations (Gen 12:1\u20133). This was \u201cthe gospel spoken to Abraham\u201d (Gal 3:8), delivered by Jesus himself as the pre-incarnate Word of God (Gen 15:1; John 1:1\u20133, 14; 8:56).
\nThe rest of the Old Testament focuses on God\u2019s chosen people, the offspring of Abraham, later called Israel, and their interactions with the other nations. The Israelites were commanded to avoid intermarriage with these other nations and to reject the worship of their national gods (Deut 7:3\u20135). The Old Testament story of Israel, however, is dominated by their failure to follow these commands\u2014regularly worshiping foreign gods and eventually suffering the punishment of exile (2 Kgs 24\u201325). God\u2019s plan to redeem his people from this punishment centered on the arrival of a single human offspring out of Israel, a son of Eve, a member of the line of David, God\u2019s chosen king, to bring everything full circle. This person is Jesus.<\/p>\n
New Testament Re-Purposing of Divine Sonship Language<\/p>\n
In view of the Old Testament context, it is no surprise that the New Testament writers utilized the language of divine sonship for believers in Jesus.2 They also associated the Church, the community carrying on God\u2019s revived kingdom rule on earth, with Israel, God\u2019s earlier kingdom community, but since many believers were Gentiles\u2014not a part of the people of Israel by birth\u2014New Testament writers also used terms like \u201cadoption\u201d to describe membership as children in God\u2019s family. Believers in Jesus are the spiritual seed of Abraham. Paul states this explicitly in Gal 3:7\u20139 (see also Gal 3:25\u201329).
\nThe language of divine inheritance advances the Old Testament idea that humans were meant to be in the family of God. The New Testament writers thought in terms of \u201cadoption,\u201d \u201cheir,\u201d and \u201cinheritance\u201d to describe what the Church really is\u2014the reestablished human family of God. They also used these terms to describe what the Church will be in the final form of the kingdom on the new earth when believers are glorified. The believer\u2019s destiny is to become what Adam and Eve originally were in Eden in God\u2019s presence before the Fall: immortal, glorified imagers of God (see 2 Pet 1:2\u20134).<\/p>\n
49<\/p>\n
The Lord, Who Is the Spirit<\/p>\n
It was Peter who said of Paul\u2019s writings, \u201cThere are some things in them that are hard to understand\u201d (2 Pet 3:16). One thing Peter might have been talking about is Paul\u2019s statement in Ephesians 4:8, which has long puzzled Bible students. To understand Paul\u2019s logic, we need to begin with Psalm 68:18, the passage he draws on in this verse:<\/p>\n
Psalm 68:18
\nEphesians 4:8
\nYou ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men.
\nTherefore it says, \u201cWhen he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.\u201d<\/p>\n
The \u201cascent on high\u201d in Psalm 68 referred to a mountain\u2014Mount Bashan (Ps 68:15). In the Old Testament, Bashan was a region associated with spiritual evil, the quasi-divine, giant Rephaim (Deut 1:4; 3:10\u201311; Josh 9:10; 12:4\u20135).1 God desired this mountain for his own dwelling (Ps 68:16)\u2014he wanted its evil powers defeated. For Paul, Jesus is the fulfillment of Psalm 68. Jesus defeated the powers of darkness when he died and rose again (1 Pet 3:22; Eph 1:20\u201321; Col 2:15).
\nIt\u2019s important to recognize that both passages are describing a conquest, not a rescue. In Psalm 68 the victorious captain of the army leads the enemy captives. Many commentators assume that Ephesians 4:8 describes captives being liberated. That isn\u2019t the case. There is no liberation; there is conquest. The passages agree in this respect. While we can understand Jesus\u2019 crucifixion and resurrection as the conquest of sin, evil, and death itself, a key difference between these texts complicates the comparison. In Psalm 68, God receives gifts after his victory, but Ephesians 4 describes Jesus giving gifts. How does this make any sense?
\nPaul\u2019s wording points to the result of Jesus\u2019 conquest. In the ancient world, a conqueror would parade the captives and demand tribute for himself. But booty also was distributed after a conquest. Paul knew that. He quotes Psalm 68:18 to explain that after Jesus conquered his demonic enemies by his resurrection, he distributed the benefits to his believing Church: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph 4:11). How is Paul getting this idea? He explains himself in Ephesians 4:9\u201312:<\/p>\n
In saying, \u201cHe ascended,\u201d what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.<\/p>\n
Paul argues that Jesus\u2019 conquering resurrection ascent was followed by a descent that led to gifts for the Church. There are two possible explanations for this descent. The most common view is that \u201cthe lower regions of the earth\u201d (LEB) into which Jesus descended refers to the grave, the realm of the dead. This is possible, since the same idea appears in 1 Peter 3:18\u201322.
\nHowever, another approach is more likely. Instead of saying \u201cof the earth\u201d in verse 9, the ESV inserts a comma. The interpretive effect is that Jesus descended to \u201cthe lower regions, [i.e.,] the earth.\u201d This option better fits the context, because the gifts are given to living believers who are on earth. If this is correct, then the descent refers not to Jesus\u2019 time in the grave, but rather to the Holy Spirit being poured out on earth on the day of Pentecost.
\nWhile many passages clarify that Jesus and the Spirit are different persons (e.g., Jesus\u2019 baptism: Matt 3:16; Jesus\u2019 temptation: 4:1; the Great Commission: 28:18\u201320), the New Testament also identifies the Spirit with Jesus in a half-dozen passages (such as Acts 16:6\u20137: \u201c[Paul, Silas, and Timothy were] prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the message in Asia.\u2026 [T]he Spirit of Jesus did not permit them\u201d [LEB]).2
\nPaul\u2019s point is profound: The resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit are two sides of the same coin. Believers benefit from both. As Paul wrote elsewhere, \u201cThe Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom\u201d (2 Cor 3:17).<\/p>\n
50<\/p>\n
Paul, Puppies, and People with Tattoos<\/p>\n
We love the letter of Philippians for its uplifting, faith-affirming tone. Although Paul wrote it in prison, it resonates joy. Paul\u2019s circumstances didn\u2019t put him in a bad mood. But something else did. He writes:<\/p>\n
Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you. Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh. (Phil 3:1\u20133)<\/p>\n
We have no trouble understanding Paul when he says, \u201cLook out for the evildoers.\u201d But dogs? People who mutilate the flesh? Did Paul hate puppies and people with tattoos? Not exactly. Like any statement in the Bible, this one requires context to help us get inside the writer\u2019s head.<\/p>\n
Dogs in the Ancient World<\/p>\n
In the ancient world (except in the Egyptian and Phoenician cultures), dogs were routinely despised. Their instinctive, base behavior\u2014such as eating dead, decayed flesh or consuming their own vomit\u2014disgusted ancient people (Exod 22:31; 1 Kgs 14:11; Prov 26:11). The appropriate insult to heap on someone you considered worthless was \u201cdead dog\u201d (2 Sam 16:9; see also Deut 23:17\u201318).
\nPaul, with his thorough knowledge of the Old Testament, would have been acquainted with the use of the term in the Bible and in his culture. The label makes sense here since Paul follows it by warning \u201clook out for the evildoers.\u201d Paul didn\u2019t hate puppies. He hated evil.<\/p>\n
Mutilators of the Flesh<\/p>\n
But what about \u201cthose who mutilate the flesh\u201d? What sense can we make of that? As odd as it sounds, this phrase is one of the keys to understanding just who Paul is referring to in Philippians 3.
\nThe phrase literally reads \u201clook out for the mutilation.\u201d The Greek word behind \u201cmutilation\u201d is the noun katatom\u0113. Paul likely chose it deliberately because it sounds a bit like another Greek word\u2014peritom\u0113, which means \u201ccircumcision.\u201d Right after Paul warns the Philippians to \u201clook out for the mutilation,\u201d he adds an explanation: \u201cFor we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh\u201d (Phil 3:3). Paul was using a satirical play on words to make his point.
\nPaul wasn\u2019t objecting to circumcision itself. He never characterizes circumcision as something to be abhorred (Rom 3:1\u20132; 1 Cor 7:18). Paul was objecting to those who taught that circumcision was essential for salvation\u2014for inclusion in the community of believers.
\nThe idea that any ritual could result in salvation or merit God\u2019s favor was incompatible with salvation by grace through faith. Gentiles who believed according to the faith of Abraham were \u201cblessed along with Abraham\u201d (Gal 3:9), because \u201cin Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith\u201d (Gal 3:26). Whether Jew or Gentile, those who believe in Jesus are the spiritual children of Abraham; they are heirs to the promises God made to him (Gal 3:29). His opponents\u2019 perversion of the gospel infuriated Paul. Using the term \u201cmutilation\u201d was his sarcastic way of showing contempt for the false teaching.
\nPaul\u2019s derogatory terms for his opponents weren\u2019t cast out lightly. They were born out of a deep concern for the gospel message: we cannot merit salvation, nor can we earn grace. Salvation comes through faith in the grace God showed us through Jesus\u2019 work on the cross.<\/p>\n
51<\/p>\n
Watch Your Language!<\/p>\n
One of the most frequently repeated maxims about translation, including Bible translation, is that \u201cevery translator is a traitor.\u201d The point of this saying is not that translations are unreliable\u2014it\u2019s that they aren\u2019t perfect. Every translation loses something of the original meaning. In most cases this is inadvertent, but sometimes it\u2019s deliberate, as in Philippians 3:8:<\/p>\n
Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.<\/p>\n
The verse might sound straightforward, but the translator has softened what was likely its intended force. The Greek word translated \u201crubbish\u201d is skybalon; while the term appears only here in the New Testament, it is found in classical Greek literature as a word for human excrement or manure.1<\/p>\n
Why So Crass?<\/p>\n
Paul also uses rough\u2014even crude\u2014language elsewhere in his writings. For example, in Galatians, Paul\u2019s primary opponents are Jews (or Jewish Christians) insisting that Gentile converts practice certain parts of the Mosaic law to ensure their inclusion in the people of God. One such element was circumcision. Paul gets so exasperated that at one point he wishes the people insisting on circumcision would just castrate themselves (Gal 5:11\u201312). And Paul is not the first or only biblical writer to use such strong language.<\/p>\n
The Precedent for Euphemism<\/p>\n
It would be misguided to view the translators\u2019 choice of \u201crubbish\u201d over \u201cexcrement\u201d in Phil 3:8 as dishonest. While it\u2019s true that the term is in the text, the translator shows sensitivity to propriety and the expectations of \u201cpolite society.\u201d In seeking to soften offensive language, the translator follows the lead of the biblical writers themselves.
\nThe Old Testament writers were especially adept at using euphemisms in place of scatological language\u2014terms associated with certain bodily functions and their corresponding body parts. For example, Zechariah 3:3\u20134 speaks of the high priest\u2019s garments as being \u201cfilthy\u201d (tso\u2019i). The Hebrew word is literally \u201cwhat goes out,\u201d a euphemistic reference to excrement. Thus, Zechariah depicts Joshua the high priest as one who has soiled himself and now stands before God. The imagery is repulsive\u2014but that\u2019s the point: Sin is repulsive. Modern translators have to decide whether to use biblical euphemisms or opt for new substitutions.<\/p>\n
Paul\u2019s Point<\/p>\n
To understand why Paul used coarse language in Philippians 3:8, we need to look at what he was calling \u201crubbish.\u201d In Philippians 3:4\u20137, Paul lists all the things that he had presumed made him acceptable to God: his circumcision, his zeal for the Mosaic law, his previous status as a Pharisee, and his efforts to snuff out Christianity. He now considers all of these things as excrement\u2014something not only viscerally offensive, but ceremonially unclean for sacred space in the old tabernacle and temple (Deut 23:12\u201314; Ezek 4:12\u201313). Paul could not have chosen a more vivid way of communicating his point that, next to Christ\u2019s work on the cross, none of those things mattered to God.<\/p>\n
Shock and Awe with a Purpose<\/p>\n
The Bible is not a prudish book. Paul at times resorted to earthy language to jolt his audience to attention and to punctuate the seriousness of his teaching. Isaiah and Ezekiel did the same thing. Yet Scripture also demonstrates that thoughtless, flippant crudity is no virtue (Eph 5:4; Phil 4:8). The Bible provides a model of transparency without indecency that\u2019s worth imitating.<\/p>\n
52<\/p>\n
No Longer Slaves<\/p>\n
The church at Colossae\u2014with both moral and doctrinal problems\u2014was like any other fledgling congregation to which Paul ministered. One example of the church\u2019s doctrinal problems that has received considerable attention among Bible scholars has been labeled the \u201cColossian heresy.\u201d Two passages are of central importance to understanding this heresy and how Paul addresses it:<\/p>\n
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits (stoicheia) of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col 2:8)<\/p>\n
Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels.\u2026 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits (stoicheia) of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations\u2014\u201cDo not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch.\u201d (Col 2:18, 20\u201321)<\/p>\n
In both passages, Paul uses a Greek term\u2014stoicheia\u2014that is simultaneously well understood by scholars but mystifying in terms of what Paul is thinking when he employs it. The term stoicheia occurs widely in Greek literature to describe (1) basic principles of religious teaching (e.g., rules, rituals); (2) rudimentary substances of the physical world (earth, wind, fire, water); (3) astral deities (the notion that celestial objects were divine beings); and (4) spiritual beings in general.1
\nReferences to stoicheia occur seven times in the New Testament. The only instance that seems certain with respect to meaning is Hebrews 5:12, where stoicheia describes the law (\u201cbasic principles of the oracles of God\u201d). When it comes to Paul\u2019s use of the term (Col 2:8, 20; and Gal 4:3, 9), there is no consensus among scholars as to his meaning. The general context of Paul\u2019s discussion in Galatians 4 and Colossians 2 includes spiritual forces\u2014angels, principalities and powers, false gods\u2014which suggests stoicheia may refer to such beings. He is certainly contrasting stoicheia with salvation in Christ in some way. Since Paul is speaking to both Jews and Gentiles, he might be using the term in different ways with respect to each audience. With a Jewish audience in view in Galatians 4:1\u20137, Paul\u2019s use of stoicheia in 4:3 likely refers to the law and religious teaching (similar to Heb 5:12). But in 4:8\u201311, where the audience shifts to Gentiles, it seems coherent to see stoicheia in 4:9 as referring to spiritual beings\u2014probably astral deities (the \u201cFates\u201d). The reference to \u201ctimes and seasons and years\u201d (4:10) would therefore point to astrological beliefs, not the Jewish calendar. Paul is therefore denying the idea that the celestial objects (sun, moon, stars) are deities. His Gentile readers should not be enslaved by the idea that these objects controlled their destiny.
\nIn terms of the \u201cColossian heresy,\u201d both Jews and Gentiles are likely in view; hence the term stoicheia would have had meaning for both audiences. Paul links what he says about stoicheia to the \u201cworship of angels\u201d (Col 2:18). Given that Paul and other New Testament writers have the Jewish law dispensed by angels (Gal 3:19; Acts 7:53; Heb 2:2), some scholars argue that, for Jewish readers, the stoicheia of Colossians may refer to a heresy that enslaved Jews to the law\u2014including flawed worship of the angels associated with delivering the law to Israel. For Gentiles, these \u201cangels\u201d and the ascetic \u201cregulations\u201d of Colossians 2:20\u201321 may speak to a heretical emphasis on keeping in sync with pagan rituals and celestial divinities, who were thought to be angered when those rituals were neglected.
\nWhatever the ultimate, precise meaning, the contrast with the gospel of grace was crystal clear. Believers in Christ are no longer enslaved to spiritual forces of any kind. Legal demands and ritual obligations have been nailed to the cross (Col 2:14), resulting in forgiveness and freedom.<\/p>\n
53<\/p>\n
The Relationship of Baptism and Circumcision<\/p>\n
Baptism is a controversial doctrine. Many Christian denominations say something distinctive about baptism, often in contradiction to each other. Some connect baptism to the removal of original sin, while others deny it has any connection to sin at all. Some believe it is a religious rite that sets recipient infants on their way to seeking God, while others reject baptizing infants. Some teach that it is a sign of a covenantal guarantee of election for the recipient, while others say it is a sign of conversion that has already taken place. Colossians 2:11\u201312 may point us to a greater understanding of baptism in biblical theology.<\/p>\n
In [Christ] also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.<\/p>\n
This passage forms a connection between baptism and circumcision. Though Paul doesn\u2019t specifically identify what that connection is, his words direct us to circumcision as an analogy. What we say about the meaning of baptism ought to be consistent with the meaning of circumcision.<\/p>\n
What Circumcision Did Not Mean or Accomplish<\/p>\n
Several aspects are clear in regard to circumcision in Old Testament theology and in the historical context of biblical Israel. The Old Testament story indicates that circumcision neither provided nor ensured salvation, nor did it lessen anyone\u2019s sinful impulse. In the Old Testament, most circumcised Israelites still turned away from God, practicing idolatry\u2014their actions eventually prompting Yahweh to punish them with exile. The fact that Israelite men were circumcised meant nothing with respect to their spiritual inclination or destiny.
\nFurthermore, the Old Testament texts are clear that circumcision was not practiced on women. While some cultures and religions around the world have practiced female circumcision, Israel only circumcised males.1 This indicates that the cutting rite itself did nothing with respect to an individual\u2019s ultimate spiritual destiny\u2014if it did, women would not have been excluded. Additionally, historical sources indicate that cultures other than Israel, such as Egypt, also practiced circumcision for men.2 This shows that the rite itself had no efficacy in regard to salvation. Rather, its importance was in what the rite signified in conjunction with the promises God gave to Abraham and his descendants. The actual ritual of circumcision therefore had nothing to do with salvation or expressing faith in the God of Israel.<\/p>\n
The Meaning of Circumcision<\/p>\n
For all Israelites, circumcision was a physical, visible reminder of their identity as Yahweh\u2019s covenant people (Gen 17:1\u201314). They owed their existence both individually and corporately to a supernatural act of God on behalf of Abraham and Sarah in fulfillment of his covenant promise (Gen 17:15\u201321). Circumcision was a constant reminder of the supernatural grace of God.
\nFor males, circumcision granted the recipient admission into the community of Israel\u2014the community that had the exclusive truth of the true God. This truth included Yahweh\u2019s covenant relationship with Israel and their need to have \u201ccircumcised hearts\u201d (i.e., to believe in Yahweh\u2019s promises and worship him alone; Deut 10:16; 30:6). In ancient patriarchal Israel, women were members of the community through marriage to a circumcised man or by being born to Israelite parents. Intermarriage with foreign men (i.e., uncircumcised so not part of Yahweh\u2019s covenant community) was forbidden, a prohibition that maintained the purity of the membership (Deut 7:3\u20135). This purity was directly related to the spiritual significance of circumcision.
\nMembership in the community was important for a specific reason: only this community had the truth\u2014the \u201cthe oracles of God,\u201d as Paul called God\u2019s revelation to Israel (Rom 3:2). Only Israel had the truth in regard to the nature of the true God among all gods and how people could be rightly related to him (i.e., the way of salvation). Yahweh had created this human community with the goal of giving the way of salvation. This exclusivity is what is meant in Old Testament theology to be \u201celect\u201d or \u201cchosen\u201d (Deut 7:7). Election was not equated with salvation since vast multitudes of elect Israelites were not saved due to their unfaithfulness. Every Israelite member of the exclusive community had to believe in the covenant promises and worship Yahweh. Circumcision meant access to this truth.<\/p>\n
Circumcision as an Analogy to Baptism<\/p>\n
The meaning and significance of circumcision connects to baptism in several aspects, whether one\u2019s position includes baptism of infants or not. Baptizing an infant makes that infant a member in the believing community, a local church. Hopefully, that church will teach the words of God and the way of salvation so that the child will hear the gospel and believe. The hope would be the same for an adult recipient of baptism. When Abraham and his entire household (even servants) were circumcised, the account does not identify who believed in Abraham\u2019s God and who did not. The assumption is that, as members of his household who would observe God\u2019s blessing and Abraham\u2019s faithfulness, they too would believe. Many adults who are baptized today have already made a faith decision\u2014a type of baptism also described in the New Testament. When New Testament believers were baptized, they became members of the believing community. Such membership meant they regularly experienced community with other believers, something that would sustain their faith and help them to be assured of God\u2019s promises. This is equally true today. Membership in the family of God should both foster and sustain faith. These were God\u2019s same goals for Old Testament Israel.<\/p>\n
54<\/p>\n
Disarming the Powers of Darkness<\/p>\n
Christians often talk about dark spiritual forces working against them in a range of situations, from disagreements with a neighbor to claims of demonic possession. Sadly, the way the New Testament portrays spiritual conflict is all too often neglected.
\nWhile Paul and other writers are clear that the war against sinister powers of darkness is ongoing, those same powers are routinely said to have been defeated by the cross. This crucial element of how we need to think about cosmic evil is evidenced in Colossians 2:15:<\/p>\n
When he had disarmed the rulers and the authorities, he made a display of them in public, triumphing over them by it.1 (LEB)<\/p>\n
Although this passage looks fairly straightforward, it has long puzzled interpreters for several reasons. The wording is similar to other passages, but it also differs significantly from those passages. For example, in Ephesians 4:8\u201310, Jesus \u201cascended on high\u201d leading a line of captives in his wake. But in Colossians 2:15, Jesus isn\u2019t leading captives; rather, they are disarmed, publicly humiliated, and defeated, but apparently still working against him and us. Elsewhere, Paul has Christ leading believers in a \u201ctriumphal procession\u201d (2 Cor 2:14). Are these passages mutually contradictory? Who are the \u201crulers and authorities\u201d? If they weren\u2019t destroyed, what does Paul\u2019s description of what happened to them because of the cross mean?
\nIn Ephesians 4, Paul is talking about demonic entities\u2014the \u201cbulls of Bashan\u201d (Ps 22:12), the unholy mountain God wanted conquered in Psalm 68 (from which Paul quotes in Eph 4:8\u201310).2 That mountain was associated with \u201cprince Baal\u201d (baal-zebul) in the Old Testament, the Canaanites\u2019 lord of the dead, and a template for Satan in the New Testament. Paul is trying to communicate Christ\u2019s victory over death at the cross and the binding (note the \u201cprisoner\u201d language) of Satan in terms of \u201clegal ownership\u201d over the souls of humanity. But Paul\u2019s perspective is a bit different in Colossians 2:15. The cross accomplished something different with respect to the \u201crulers and authorities\u201d that Paul has in view here.
\nThe three verbs Paul uses in Colossians 2:15 are apekduomai (\u201cdisarm\u201d), deigmatiz\u014d (\u201cput to shame\u201d or \u201cmake a public display of\u201d), and thriambeu\u014d (\u201ctriumph over\u201d). These Greek words are not common. Taken together, they refer to a public humiliation, a stripping of authority, or a loss of status and office\u2014but not imprisonment or death. This is why scholars have noted the lack of a clear warfare parallel to the language.
\nThe key to discerning Paul\u2019s meaning is his \u201crulers and authorities\u201d reference. These terms are part of Paul\u2019s stock vocabulary for powers of darkness in the spiritual realm (\u201cheavenly places\u201d; Eph 3:10; 6:12). These terms are often used in tandem with others, such as \u201cthrones\u201d and \u201cdominions\u201d (Eph 1:21; Col 1:16). They are all labels for geographical dominion by spiritual powers. They reflect the cosmic-geographical supernatural worldview inherited by Paul from the Old Testament, where the gods \u201callotted\u201d by Yahweh to the nations in punishment at Babel (Gen 11:1\u20139; Deut 32:8\u20139; Dan 10:13) turned away from him and seduced the Israelites (Deut 4:19\u201320; 17:2\u20133; 29:24\u201326; 32:17; Ps 82).3
\nBecause of the cross, these hostile spiritual beings have lost\u2014and are still losing\u2014their status and rank over the nations as the kingdom of Christ expands over the world. They ultimately will be replaced by forgiven believers (Rev 2:25\u201327) who will \u201cjudge angels\u201d (1 Cor 6:3), having become the new, glorified children of God at the end of the age (John 1:12; 1 John 3:1\u20133; Rom 8:18\u201319).<\/p>\n
55<\/p>\n
Inspiration Was a Process, Not an Event<\/p>\n
Because the Bible says quite clearly that Scripture is \u201cGod-breathed\u201d (2 Tim 3:16), Christians tend to think of inspiration as some sort of otherworldly event. In the course of many years of teaching biblical studies (and chatting with people at church), I\u2019ve heard some pretty strange explanations of inspiration\u2014about how God took control of the hand and mind of the writer, or how the authors slipped into a heaven-sent trance state, or how the Spirit whispered the precise words into their minds (or maybe just \u201cimpressed\u201d them into their consciousness). Frankly, all of that sounds more like an episode of The X-Files than biblical theology. And it absolutely doesn\u2019t reflect what we actually find in Scripture about inspiration.
\nThere are some transparent examples of why the \u201cparanormal event\u201d view of inspiration makes no sense. There are four gospels in the New Testament. Three of them (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) overlap with respect to the events they include about the life of Jesus, but those events may be dissimilar in the level of detail1 or arranged in a different sequence.2 Dialogue within shared episodes also diverges in vocabulary, length of statements, and who speaks when. And even when the dialogue (in English translations) appears identical, it isn\u2019t. In the Greek text writers can use different words, verb tenses, noun cases, conjunctions, and so on. If the stories of Jesus were \u201cwhispered\u201d to the writers or downloaded into their semiconscious minds, divergences like these are the last thing we should expect. Would the Holy Spirit really want to yank our theological chains like that? I doubt it.
\nThere are a lot of other phenomena in the biblical text that tell the careful reader quite clearly that inspiration wasn\u2019t an event. Most biblical books show signs of editing. One of the best examples is the first four verses of the book of Ezekiel:<\/p>\n
In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the Chebar canal, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. On the fifth day of the month (it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin), the word of the LORD came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the Chebar canal, and the hand of the LORD was upon him there. As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north. (Ezek 1:1\u20134)<\/p>\n
The first verse uses the first person in two instances\u2014indicated in bold. The first person language creates the expectation that Ezekiel is writing about himself. But in verse three there is a switch to the third person\u2014indicated by underlining. Now the writer is clearly not Ezekiel, but is an anonymous author referring to Ezekiel in the third person. Verse four switches back to first person (in bold again). These switches are the tell-tale signs of an editor. The Holy Spirit is not suffering from schizophrenia. This material is clearly not dictated or downloaded or automated.<\/p>\n
Instruments or Puppets?<\/p>\n
While God does speak to people in Scripture, the passages that describe how biblical authors produced their texts never cast it in anomalous terms. According to the Bible, Scripture is the result of divine influence and the very normal human activity of speaking and, by extension, writing (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:16\u201321). Writers report events and record feelings. They build arguments. They express themselves in poetry. They use sources. They borrow thoughts. They (or other hands that follow) rewrite and refine what was written. Authors are sensitive to genre, structure, literary devices, word choice, poetic parallelism, and narrative art. There is wordplay, irony, and premeditated structuring of plot. The books we have in our Bible are the result of work and careful thought. Biblical books were not slapped together. No part of any biblical book just \u201chappened\u201d out of the blue.
\nGod\u2019s role is no less significant and intentional. God chose a wide range of people and providentially prepared them for the moment he would prompt them, either by his Spirit or by someone else\u2019s influence, to write something down for the benefit of God\u2019s people (or to collect and edit material from a prophetic figure). God put them in situations that would lead to the need for them to write the message God wanted preserved. He didn\u2019t need to put them into a trance and manipulate their fingers. They didn\u2019t need hand-holding (or mind control). They were his instruments, not his puppets.<\/p>\n
Embracing the Bible\u2019s Humanity<\/p>\n
Why does any of this matter? Because minimizing (or denying) the humanity behind biblical authorship is a surefire way to undermine the doctrine of inspiration. Explaining the Bible as something dispensed from a super-intelligent deity from out of the ether is irreconcilable with what we see in it. On the other hand, defining inspiration as a long process guided unfailingly by Providence helps account for the phenomena of Scripture. Embracing the humanity of the Bible is enormously helpful for understanding what\u2019s actually in the Bible\u2014in terms of both its \u201cuntidiness\u201d and its artistry.<\/p>\n
56<\/p>\n
The Father of Lights<\/p>\n
The book of James deserves its reputation as one of the more practical, down-to-earth books in the New Testament. But while mining its riches for Christian living, we can easily overlook the powerful theological statements tucked away in this short letter. This one appears in the first chapter (Jas 1:17):<\/p>\n
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.<\/p>\n
James\u2019 phrase \u201cFather of lights\u201d is unique in the Bible. Understanding the phrase is crucial to comprehending what he means by there being \u201cno variation or shadow due to change\u201d with God. \u201cFather of lights\u201d points to God\u2019s role as creator of the stars and other celestial objects. We see this idea in the creation account as well as in Psalms (Gen 1:14\u201318; Pss 136:7\u20139; 148:1\u20135). Similar phrases pointing to the same idea occur sporadically in other ancient Jewish literature, like the Dead Sea Scrolls.1
\nThe celestial bodies mark seasons and the passage of time (Gen 1:14\u201318). They are associated with change. The word translated \u201cchange\u201d (Greek trop\u0113) in James 1:17 is a noun used elsewhere in Greek literature to describe the movement and positioning of stars, seasonal changes and their effect on the land, and the two annual solstices.2 James\u2019 use of \u201cchange\u201d with \u201cshadow\u201d suggests an eclipse. His point is profound. Although the lights\u2014the celestial bodies\u2014change and vary, their Father does not. He is unwavering.
\nBut the phrase \u201cFather of lights\u201d conveys more than God\u2019s role as creator. His character and nature are fundamentally distinct from those of all other divine beings. Like those of other ancient cultures, Jewish writings convey the widespread belief that the stars were heavenly beings. This idea is found in the Old Testament, where the sons of God are metaphorically referred to as \u201cthe stars of God\u201d (Job 38:7). James\u2019 description of God as the \u201cFather of lights\u201d then speaks of God as the creator of all heavenly beings\u2014emphasizing that they are created and are therefore inferior. God alone is uncreated.
\nThis idea also sheds light (pun intended) on 1 John 1:5, where John wrote that \u201cGod is light.\u201d His point was not that God is energy particles\u2014which would mean that God is part of the creation, something John elsewhere explicitly denies (John 1:1\u20133). Rather, John uses the phrase metaphorically and qualifies it by saying that in God \u201cthere is no darkness at all.\u201d Only God is wholly true and good.
\nOur Father of lights stands alone as the one who created time and its markers. The celestial bodies move as he ordained at creation, while his nature remains constant. The Author of change does not himself change. His character never fluctuates. The Father of lights created the spiritual beings who are his heavenly host (1 Kgs 22:19), but only he is consistently true and good. Their nature may fail. His will not.<\/p>\n
57<\/p>\n
What Do Demons Believe about God?<\/p>\n
Like many other cinema fans, I count the romantic comedy The Princess Bride as one of my favorite movies of all time. It\u2019s filled with memorable characters and dialogue. For instance, the character Vizzini (who fancies himself a genius) is best remembered for repeatedly exclaiming, \u201cInconceivable!\u201d He says it so often and in so many inappropriate contexts that it becomes silly\u2014which is, of course, the intention. In one scene, Inigo Montoya points out the absurdity when he says to Vizzini, \u201cYou keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.\u201d
\nI\u2019m reminded of this line whenever I hear someone quote\u2014or misquote\u2014James 2:19: \u201cYou believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe\u2014and shudder!\u201d The verse doesn\u2019t say what many readers presume it says.<\/p>\n
Reading James Correctly<\/p>\n
Over the years, I\u2019ve heard this verse cited in an attempt to explain that the message of the gospel involves much more than just believing in God: \u201cThe demons believe in God, and that doesn\u2019t get them to heaven.\u201d It\u2019s true that simply believing there\u2019s a God won\u2019t get anyone to heaven. But James\u2019 point isn\u2019t that demons believe in God.
\nLook at the verse again. What the demons believe, according to James, is \u201cthat God is one.\u201d The demons believe in the existence of God, but James goes beyond that to tell us that the demons believe something specific about God\u2014and that specific belief is what makes them shudder.<\/p>\n
The Shema<\/p>\n
The wording of James 2:19\u2014\u201cGod is one\u201d\u2014is an echo of Deuteronomy 6:4: \u201cHear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.\u201d This verse, considered the fundamental creed of believing Israelites, is called the Shema. That term is a transliteration of the command \u201cHear!\u201d\u2014which in Hebrew is the word shema\u02bf.
\nJames wrote his book to Jews who had come to believe in Jesus (Jas 1:1\u20133), so his readers would have picked up on the phrase and understood the reference. James is telling Jewish Christians that it\u2019s a good thing to believe that God is one. Their faith in Jesus as God doesn\u2019t require them to deny this fundamental point of biblical theology. But correct belief must be validated by righteous living.
\nJames isn\u2019t arguing here that our works merit eternal life, as though God owes salvation to someone who has good works. God is never in the debt of any person at any time. Salvation cannot be earned (Eph 2:8\u20139). Rather, James wants to be able to discern the faith of his readers. Their works will show him (and others) that they believe\u2014because one\u2019s belief in the truth is validated by the testimony of one\u2019s actions. We do not do good work to force God to give us our due, as though he owes us salvation. We work to show that we believe the gospel\u2014his gracious offer of a salvation we could never earn.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s So Scary about the Shema?<\/p>\n
Demons, of course, may hold the correct belief that \u201cGod is one,\u201d but salvation was never offered to them. The crucial point of the Shema is that God offered redemption through the people of Israel, Abraham\u2019s descendants. In the Old Testament story, Israel was created through supernatural intervention after God dispersed the nations of the earth at the Tower of Babel (Gen 10; 11:1\u20139). Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139 describes what happened:<\/p>\n
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the LORD\u2019S portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.1<\/p>\n
After the judgment at the Tower of Babel, God called Abraham (Gen 12:1\u20133). The two events happened back to back. When God called Abraham and established his \u201cportion\u201d\u2014the nation of Israel\u2014he set aside all other nations. Those disinherited nations were allotted to other divine beings, the sons of God, who are elsewhere called the \u201chost of heaven\u201d (Deut 4:19; 17:3), gods (Hebrew elohim), and demons (Hebrew shedim) in Deuteronomy (4:19\u201320; 17:3; 29:24\u201326; 32:17).2 We aren\u2019t told just when or how, but these sons of God set over the other nations became corrupt and abused their authority (Ps 82) by seducing the Israelites to worship them instead of the true God (Deut 29:24\u201326; 32:17).<\/p>\n
What It All Means<\/p>\n
The important theological point is that the people of those nations and the demon-gods to whom they were given were outside the plan of salvation. The rebellious sons of God, the demons (32:17), knew what the Shema meant. It reminded them that they were forever banished from the presence of the true God. It shouldn\u2019t surprise us that they trembled at the thought. For the Israelites, \u201cThe LORD our God is one\u201d was a reminder that there was only one God who could provide salvation, and that God had chosen Israel out of the nations to be his own people. Only the Israelites had the truth about the Most High God: God had become incarnate in Christ. By embracing Jesus, James\u2019 audience was embracing the ultimate outcome of their ancient covenant faith.<\/p>\n
58<\/p>\n
Jesus, The Morning Star out of Jacob<\/p>\n
Chances are good that any talk about Jesus and a star you\u2019ll hear during the Christmas season will be about the events of Matthew 2:1\u201312, which tells of the magi following the celestial sign to the home of Joseph, Mary, and little Jesus. While that familiar story deserves the attention it gets, our fascination with it distracts from another star associated with the Messiah. In Numbers 24:17, we read the prophecy that \u201ca star will go out from Jacob, and a scepter will rise from Israel\u201d (LEB). You might think that this was the Old Testament prophecy Matthew had in mind when he wrote about the magi, but it wasn\u2019t. Matthew never quotes or alludes to this verse.
\nNumbers 24:17 was considered messianic in ancient Jewish thinking, but no one thought of a celestial sign when reading it. The star wasn\u2019t described as coming from the heavens; rather, it would \u201cgo out from Jacob\u201d and \u201crise from Israel,\u201d and that means the star represents a person. In ancient times, star language was used to refer to divinity or royalty. Sometimes those conceptions merged, since kings were thought to be installed by the gods to rule or even to have divine parentage. For Israelites, star language pointed to the Messiah-King. Numbers 24:17 is therefore the backdrop for interpreting some odd passages in Revelation. Look at what the apostle John reports Jesus saying:<\/p>\n
And the one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, I will give him authority over the nations, and \u201che will shepherd them with an iron rod; he will break them in pieces like jars made of clay,\u201d as I also have received from my Father, and I will give him the morning star. (Rev 2:25\u201328 LEB)<\/p>\n
What does it mean to \u201cgive the morning star\u201d to the one who conquers and remains faithful to Jesus? The answer lies in the parallel phrase earlier in the passage: To \u201cgive the morning star\u201d means to \u201cgive authority over the nations\u201d (v. 26). But precisely what that points to might still be a bit fuzzy. John clears it up in Revelation 22:16, where Jesus himself describes his messianic status using morning-star language:<\/p>\n
I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. (LEB)<\/p>\n
In other words, Jesus is the divine messiah-king foretold in Numbers 24:17. The implication of this language and these passages is staggering. In Revelation 2:27, Jesus quotes Psalm 2:7\u20139, a psalm about his reign over the nations, and applies it to faithful believers. Jesus is and has the morning star. He is the messianic authority to rule the nations\u2014and he intends to share that authority with his children. John repeats this thought in Revelation 3:21:<\/p>\n
The one who conquers, I will grant to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also have conquered and have sat down with my Father on his throne. (LEB)<\/p>\n
The star of Bethlehem isn\u2019t the only star that makes Christmas wonderful. The one who is the morning star has decreed that believers\u2019 destiny involves not just an eternal home with God, but a shared rulership with our king on the new earth.<\/p>\n
59<\/p>\n
Relying on Our Preconceptions<\/p>\n
Part of being a conscientious Bible student is ensuring we don\u2019t filter Scripture through our own assumptions and preconceived ideas about what it says. Our theology should come from the biblical text, not from our traditional readings of it.
\nSuspending our presuppositions is not as easy as it might seem. One of the more surprising examples of a misguided assumption involves the idea that the devil rebelled with one-third of God\u2019s angels in the primeval past, before the fall of humanity in Genesis 3. There is no passage in Scripture that records this event, yet many Christians believe it to be a point of biblical teaching. Only one passage in Scripture uses the term \u201cthird\u201d in connection with language that could describe angels: Revelation 12:1\u20139:<\/p>\n
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun.\u2026 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness.\u2026 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world\u2014he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.<\/p>\n
The passage clearly identifies the dragon as the devil (12:9), and most scholars would identify the stars that were \u201ccast down\u201d (ball\u014d; 12:4) to the earth with the dragon\u2019s angels, who ultimately were \u201cthrown down\u201d (ball\u014d; 12:9). But this war in heaven is not connected explicitly with creation, a time before creation, or the fall of humanity; it\u2019s clearly associated with the birth of the Messiah (12:5), since the writer uses messianic wording for the child\u2019s destiny (Ps 2:9; Zech 9:10). In addition, the passage says nothing about when the devil turned from God.
\nAlso, there are ambiguities in the passage. The actual mention of a war comes only in Rev 12:7, which describes the dragon (the devil) and his angels fighting against Michael and his angelic warriors. That raises the possibility that the third of the angels (\u201cstars\u201d in 12:4) are not the devil\u2019s agents, but instead are godly angels defeated by the devil and other angels loyal to him. It is an assumption that the battle scene in 12:7\u20139 is expanding on the event in 12:4. They could be two separate events in the same overarching conflict.
\nIn any case, the timing of the heavenly war is not what many Bible students presume. The apocalyptic nature of this text means we cannot be certain about any interpretation. As we study the Bible, it\u2019s all too easy to let well worn (and flawed) assumptions fill in the gaps in our understanding, especially when it comes to difficult passages. If we seek to be faithful to God\u2019s word, we need to be careful that we aren\u2019t reading it with preconceived interpretations in mind.<\/p>\n
60<\/p>\n
Jesus, Our Warrior<\/p>\n
Most Bible students rightly associate the subject of holy war with the Old Testament. In books like Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges, the Israelites often engage in combat against the hostile occupants of the promised land in the name of\u2014and with aid from\u2014Yahweh.
\nHoly war and its themes are so prevalent that many Christians cannot conceive how the God of the Old Testament is consistent with the divine father figure of the New Testament and especially with God incarnate in Jesus Christ. However, these portrayals of God are not contradictions. In fact, Jesus is cast as the divine warrior in the New Testament. Paul\u2019s letter to the Ephesians provides part of this portrait.<\/p>\n
Old Testament Holy War Ideology<\/p>\n
The Old Testament outlines rules and contexts for holy war (e.g., Deut 7, 20) that were put into practice during Israel\u2019s conflicts. Before the Israelites went to war, they were to consult God and discern his will (1 Sam 23:1\u20136). When God gave them the victory, they were to to destroy their enemy\u2019s military power and \u201cput all its males to the sword\u201d (Deut 20:13). In holy war, Yahweh was Israel\u2019s divine warrior\u2014the one who led the Israelites into battle and gave them victory (Exod 15; Josh 5:13\u201315; 6:1\u20132, 27).
\nEventually God chose the man after his own heart, David, to be king over his people (1 Sam 16). God made a covenant with David legitimizing his dynastic line for the rest of Israel\u2019s history. Only David\u2019s descendants would have the right of kingship over Yahweh\u2019s people (2 Sam 7). Only a son of David would be God\u2019s approved protector of his people against the nations and their gods, sinister powers of darkness (Deut 32:8\u20139 ESV).1<\/p>\n
The Warrior Messiah\u2019s Victory<\/p>\n
The messianic Son of David is the ultimate King of Israel. The divine messiah, Jesus, is portrayed in the New Testament as a warrior-king using themes of Old Testament holy warfare. Perhaps the most familiar depiction of Jesus as divine warrior occurs in the book of Revelation. The end times and its apocalyptic struggle against the nations and the powers of darkness are a logical corollary to Old Testament holy war. The return of Jesus at the climax of the eschatological Day of the Lord is a familiar warfare scene, with Jesus at the head of God\u2019s army (Rev 19:11\u201321).
\nOutside Revelation, New Testament passages use the divine-warrior theme differently, in non-eschatological ways. In Ephesians 4:8\u201312, for instance, Paul frames Jesus\u2019 death and resurrection and the coming of the Spirit, against the backdrop of Yahweh\u2019s conquest of Mount Bashan (Ps 68:15\u201318). Bashan was long associated with the giant clan enemies (the Rephaim) defeated by Moses and Joshua in holy war. Bashan was also home to the cities Ashtaroth and Edrei (Deut 1:4; 3:1), places considered in Canaanite religion to be gateways to the underworld.2 This context of divine conquest frames the descriptions of Jesus as an enthroned king, now victorious over his enemies:<\/p>\n
[God] raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. (Eph 1:20\u201321)<\/p>\n
The Warrior Messiah Empowers His Spiritual Warriors<\/p>\n
Old Testament holy-war theology is the backdrop for what is perhaps the most well-known passage on spiritual warfare in the New Testament. In Ephesians 6:11\u201312, Paul tells believers:<\/p>\n
Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.<\/p>\n
The details of the armor that follow (6:13\u201320) should be read within the scope of the real message: The Spirit of Yahweh, the divine warrior of Israel, will fight for you. In true holy-war ideology, the real power is not found in human participants, but in the power of Jesus, our divine warrior-king.<\/p>\n
The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching Scripture on Its Own Terms
\nHeiser, Michael S<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction Three years have passed since Lexham Press first decided to compile some of my Bible Study Magazine articles for publication as a book. The result was I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible. In the introduction to that book I made the assertion that \u201ctruly understanding much of the Bible requires … <\/p>\n