{"id":237,"date":"2017-12-25T10:44:54","date_gmt":"2017-12-25T09:44:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/?p=237"},"modified":"2017-12-25T12:28:53","modified_gmt":"2017-12-25T11:28:53","slug":"i-dare-you-not-to-bore-me-with-the-bible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/2017\/12\/25\/i-dare-you-not-to-bore-me-with-the-bible\/","title":{"rendered":"I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n

Introduction<\/p>\n

The Bible is a wonderful book. Its pages reveal the epic story of God\u2019s redemption of humankind and the long, bitter conflict against evil. Yet it\u2019s also a book that seems strange to us. <\/span>While God\u2019s Word was written for<\/em> us, it wasn\u2019t written to<\/em> us.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s been my experience, as a Bible reader, seminarian and graduate student, and even as a biblical studies professor, that most people do<\/span>n\u2019t know what to do with the odd, perplexing, and perhaps frightening passages in Scripture. We tend to simply skip them. Yet by doing so, we abandon our responsibility to grasp and teach the entirety of Scripture\u2014this book we believe to be the inspired Word of God.<\/span><\/p>\n

As a consequence, believers tend to learn only the basic truths taught in the Bible. Recent studies from the Barna Group demonstrate <\/span>a growing rate of biblical and theological illiteracy in the Church at all ages, especially for those under 40. Biblical and theological illiteracy contributes to less engagement with the Bible, less appetite for its teachings, and more confusion and skepticism.<\/span><\/p>\n

Many Christians know the indispensable parts of the storyline of the Bible and the gospel message. Yet they are lost when it comes to the<\/span> remainder of the Bible\u2014especially the Old Testament, which comprises a full three-quarters of the book. Some believers try to mend this knowledge gap. They might read through all the notes in a study<\/span> Bible or even use various tools for studying Hebrew and Greek words. Yet those are the exceptions. Many people, after years of inaction, get bored with the Bible.<\/p>\n

I began my teaching career at a Bibl<\/span>e college, where I inherited the \u201cnext generation\u201d of Christian young people\u2014an age group that is now the adult leadership in their churches. Since these students had chosen to go to Bible college, I presumed they were the most likely t<\/span>o be interested in the material. I quickly discovered that wasn\u2019t the case. These students had grown up in church. They\u2019d heard sermons, attended Sunday school classes, and listened to countless messages at youth group and camps. In their minds, they\u2019d heard it all. And in one sense, they had. They\u2019d heard all of the items covered in Christianity 101\u2014hundreds of times. I distinctly remember looking out on a room full of faces that t<\/span>elegraphed one thought: <\/span>I dare you not to bore me with the Bible<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I accepted the challenge. It was thrilling to show students th<\/span>at there is so much to discover and think about in Scripture. My students needed to understand that Bible reading is not Bible study<\/em>, and that truly understanding much of the Bible requires seeing it <\/span>in its original context, not filtering it through a familiar tradition. I could only hope that after my tiny classroom of students left Bible college, they\u2019d keep probing and discovering.<\/p>\n

This book gr<\/span>ew out of the desire to make Bible Study Magazine<\/em> a tool for stimulating the person in the pew to engage the most fascinating book in the world. I recall discussing the first issue years ago with our <\/span>editor, John Barry. I related some of the episodes where I picked up the gauntlet thrown down by my students not to bore them with the Bible. We decided to name one of the features of the magazine aft<\/span>er those experiences: \u201cI Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible.\u201d Out of those early conversations other features were also born: \u201cWeird, but Important\u201d and \u201cWhat They Don\u2019t Tell You in Church.\u201d This book is a compilation of my contributions to<\/span> those features. I trust you\u2019ll enjoy them\u2014and, of course, not be bored.<\/p>\n

\u2014Michael S. Heiser<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Part One:<\/p>\n

Old Testament<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>The Ancient\u2019s Guide to the Galaxy<\/p>\n

God chose a specific time, place, and culture to inspire people to produce what we read in the Old Testament: the ancient Mediterranean and the ancient Near East of the second and first millennia bc. Understanding the worldview of this culture can lead to more faithful understandings of Scripture on our part, especially when it comes to understanding how the Israe<\/span>lites viewed God and the universe.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Old Testament Cosmology<\/p>\n

\u201cCosmology\u201d refers to the way we understand the structure of the universe. The biblical writers\u2019 conception of how the heavens and earth were structured by God represents a particular cosmology.<\/p>\n

The Israelites believed in a universe that was common among the ancient civilizations of the biblical world. It encompassed three parts: a heavenly realm, an earthly realm for humans, and an underworld for the dead. These three tiers are reflected in the Ten Commandments: \u201cYou shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth\u201d (Exod 20:4<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Heavens<\/p>\n

We find an Israelite understanding of the heavens in Genesis 1:6\u20138<\/a>, which describes it as an expanse, with waters above and below: \u201cAnd God said, \u2018Let there be an expanse (\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2<\/span>, raqia\u02be<\/span>) in<\/span> the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.\u2019 \u2026 And it was so. And God called the expanse (\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2<\/span>, raqia\u02be<\/span>) Heaven.\u201d<\/p>\n

The sky, thought to be a solid firmament, separated the w<\/span>aters above from the waters below: \u201cWhen he established the heavens, I [Wisdom] was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep\u201d (<\/span>Prov 8:27\u201328<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The firmament dome surrounded the earth, with its edge meeting at the horizon\u2014\u201cthe boundary between light and darkness\u201d (Job 26:10<\/a>). It was supported by \u201cpillars\u201d o<\/span>r \u201cfoundations,\u201d thought to be the tops of mountains, whose peaks appeared to touch the sky. The heavens had doors and windows through which rain or the waters above could flow upon the earth from their storehouses (<\/span>Gen 7:11<\/a>; 8:2<\/a>; Pss 78:23<\/a>; 33:7<\/a>).<\/p>\n

God was thought to dwell above the firmament, as described in Job 22:14<\/a>: \u201cThick clouds veil him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the vault of <\/span>heaven.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

The Earth<\/p>\n

The earth sat upon the watery deep. The \u201cwaters below\u201d speak not only to waters that people use, but also the deeper abyss. Thus, the earth was surrounded by the seas (Gen 1:9\u201310<\/a>), having ar<\/span>isen out of the water (2 Pet 3:5<\/a>). The earth was thought to be held fast by pillars or sunken foundations (1 Sam 2:8<\/a>; Job 38:4\u20136<\/a>; Psa 104:5<\/a>).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Underworld<\/p>\n

The realm of the dead was located under the earth. The most frequent term for this place was sheol<\/em> (\u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc<\/span>; Prov 9:18<\/a>; Psa 6:4\u20135<\/a>; 18:4\u20135<\/a>). The word for \u201cearth\u201d (\u05d0\u05e8\u05e5<\/span>, \u02beerets<\/span>) is also used\u2014<\/span>the graves dug by humans represented gateways to the Underworld. In Job, the realm of the dead is described in watery terms: \u201cThe dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. Sheol is naked before God, and A<\/span>baddon has no covering\u201d (Job 26:5\u20136<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Jonah\u2019s description is perhaps the most vivid. Though in the belly of the great fish, Jonah says he is in the Underworld: the watery deep \u201cat the r<\/span>oots of the mountains,\u201d a \u201cpit\u201d that had \u201cbars\u201d that closed forever (Jonah 2:5\u20136<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Becoming familiar with the ancient Near Eastern worldview can help us interpret the Old Testament. By understanding t<\/span>he Israelites\u2019 concept of cosmology, we have a better idea of their perceptions of God.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Walk Like an Israelite<\/p>\n

Cuneiform tablets changed my life. I\u2019m not kidding. As I look back on my 15 years of graduate school in biblical studies, the turning point in how I view the Bible was my course<\/span> in Ugaritic, a cuneiform language very similar to biblical Hebrew. This class compelled me to transform \u201cread the Bible in context\u201d from a na\u00efve platitude to an issue of spiritual integrity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

A Bible Study Epiphany<\/p>\n

I had the impression that interpreting the Bible in context meant learning about a piece of pottery here, an odd custom there, or having a factual acquaintance with who was alive, and what those people were doing at the time of the biblical events.<\/p>\n

But in my Ugaritic course, I learned that all of that can divorce the Bible from the ancient world in one critical way: It can exclude religious or theological ideas from all the \u201ccontext talk.\u201d It\u2019s easy to presume that most of the Bible\u2019s theological content was unique to Israel. I basically thought that Israel shared some<\/em> cultural customs with pagan Gentiles\u2014like diet, dress, marriage, and family structure. But I thought Israel\u2019s religious worldview was handed down from heaven, having no common links with paganism. Not true\u2014and the content of the tablets I had to translate in my graduate school course was Exhibit A.<\/p>\n

For starters, the people of Ugarit, a city-state in ancient Syria, described their gods with words and phrases that were in the Old Testament\u2014in a number of cases word for word. Their chief deity shared the same name (El) as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (But the El of Ugarit could hardly be called holy by biblical standards.) The honorary titles and other descriptions of the Ugarit El and his primary assistant, Baal, are applied to the God of Israel in many passages in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n

There are other examples. The behavior of prophets and the use of divination (casting lots, consulting the ephod) have clear ancient Near Eastern parallels. The design and purpose of the ark of the covenant align well with the use of sacred boxes known as palanquins in ancient Egypt. Trial by ordeal\u2014such as that found in Numbers 5<\/a>, where a woman accused of adultery must drink a potion to test her fidelity\u2014occurred in surrounding cultures. Terms for Israelite sacrifices are found in ancient Gentile religious texts. The belief that the sky was solid is part of the ancient Near Eastern cosmology shared by the Bible (Job 37:18<\/a>; Prov 8:28<\/a>).1<\/a> The notion that the seat of our intellect and emotions was our kidneys or intestines was common throughout the ancient world.2<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Spiritual Lessons and Implications<\/p>\n

Discovering all this was a little shocking. But God used that temporary discomfort to produce honesty with the biblical text. I needed to think like an ancient Israe<\/span>lite to understand the Old Testament.<\/p>\n

Israelite religion had some significant divergences from the religions of other surrounding nations, but on the whole, there were more similarities than differenc<\/span>es. I came to the realization that the correct interpretive context for the Bible is not the early church, the Protestant Reformation, the Puritans, or modern evangelicalism. Those historical contexts are alien to the Bible. Rather, the context for understanding the Bible is the historical, literary, intellectual and religious context in which it was written.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although He could have done so, God di<\/span>dn\u2019t change Israel\u2019s culture when dispensing His truth. He didn\u2019t give Israel a new culture that was dramatically distinct from Israel\u2019s neighbors. That choice would have produced something indecipherable to the people of the time. That w<\/span>ould have undermined the whole enterprise of communication.<\/p>\n

What this means is that inspiration operates within a cultural context chosen by God<\/em> in His sovereign <\/span>wisdom. We cannot honor God\u2019s choice of communication strategies if we refuse to ignore the deep worldview connections shared by both Israelites and pagans.<\/p>\n

The profound contextual overlaps between Is<\/span>rael and her pagan neighbors was a wise theological tactic on God\u2019s part. When divergences in Israel\u2019s theology appear in the text\u2014and there are some dramatic, stark points of contrast\u2014they scream for <\/span>attention on the part of the ancient reader. Unlike the pagan deities, Israel\u2019s God could not be cajoled like an idol; Yahweh could not be brought down to earth and tamed. Laws about sacrifices were <\/span>set in specific covenant contexts, giving them a unique theological dimension. Yahweh would rather have faith and loyalty than sacrifice.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Even the Bible Needed Upgrading<\/p>\n

Wait a minute. The Bible needed an upgrade?<\/p>\n

Those sound like fighting words to anyone with a high view of Scripture. An upgrade implies that something needed updating, but the Bible is timeless! That\u2019s true, but in this case I would have to excuse myself from the ring. I wouldn\u2019t want to tangle with those responsible for the improvements: the biblical writers and, well, the Spirit of God.<\/p>\n

Believe it or not, there is evidence that the Bible was updated.1<\/a> That may sound strange, but if you read closely, it\u2019s undeniable. Take Genesis 14:14<\/a> as an illustration:<\/p>\n

When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men \u2026 and went in pursuit as far as Dan.<\/p>\n

Did you notice the problem? This is the time of Abram, a time before Moses and Joshua\u2014before there was a promised land divided among the tribes of Israel. There wasn\u2019t even an Israel yet. So what\u2019s up with the reference to the land that belonged to the tribe of Dan?<\/p>\n

If we plotted out the battle between Abram described in this verse on a map, with place names appropriate for Abram\u2019s day, we\u2019d see that the writer really meant that the enemy was pursued all the way to a place called Laish, not Dan.<\/p>\n

Many Bible critics would call this an error, but it isn\u2019t. Much later, in the days of Israel\u2019s judges, Laish was renamed as Dan: \u201cAnd they named the city Dan, after the name of Dan their ancestor, who was born to Israel; but the name of the city was Laish at the first\u201d (Judg 18:29<\/a>). Evidently, an unnamed editor updated the text of Genesis 14:14<\/a> after the name change took place. The editor likely did this to make sure readers of his own day would understand the geography.<\/p>\n

In other instances, an editor repurposed something already written in the Bible to make it preach to their community. Psalm 51<\/a> is well known as a record of David\u2019s repentance after his sin with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah. The psalm, though, ends by asking God to \u201cdo good to Zion\u201d and with the command, \u201cbuild up the walls of Jerusalem\u201d (Psa 51:18\u201319<\/a>). The walls of Jerusalem were not in need of repair until after God\u2019s people were exiled, centuries after David lived. The editorial addition is a masterful literary stroke. Just as King David repented centuries before, an editor sought to move the exiles to national<\/em> repentance. It was just the kind of example they needed.<\/p>\n

Though it seems strange, the updating of Psalm 51:18\u201319<\/a> and Genesis 14:14<\/a> gives us an insight into the process of inspiration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/span><\/span>Spellchecking the Bible<\/p>\n

The words of the original biblical text cannot always be read with certainty. Genesis 49:10<\/a> is a famous example. These three translations show the differences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n

NASB<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ESV<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NIV<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u201cTh<\/span>e scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler\u2019s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh<\/strong> comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cThe scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor<\/span> the ruler\u2019s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him<\/strong>; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cThe scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler\u2019s staff from between his<\/span> feet, until he<\/strong> comes to whom it belongs<\/strong> and the obedience of the nations is his.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Three translators arrived at different conclusions because the Hebrew text itself is ambiguous. The problem is one w<\/span>ord made up of four letters: \u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4<\/span> (shiyloh<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The nasb takes these four letters as spelling \u201cShiloh,\u201d the place where the ark of the covenant was kept during the days of the Judges, Samuel, and David. <\/span>As it is written, this is how the word should be pronounced, but \u201cShiloh\u201d is not spelled this way anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible.1<\/a> The odd spelling has led many translators to suspect that \u201cShiloh\u201d<\/span> is not the correct translation.<\/p>\n

Another problem with translating this word as \u201cShiloh\u201d is that the Septuagint\u2014the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible produced a few centuries before Christ, which i<\/span>s often quoted by the New Testament writers\u2014has a different rendering. The Septuagint literally reads: \u201cuntil that which is stored away for him comes.\u201d The Hebrew text used by the Septuagint translator did not read <\/span>\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4<\/span> (shiyloh<\/span>).<\/p>\n

The Septuagint translator saw one of two things. The four consonants in our problem word could have been divided into two words: \u05e9\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d4<\/span> (shay loh<\/span>). That option would resu<\/span>lt in \u201cuntil tribute comes\u2014is brought to him.\u201d2<\/a> The esv<\/a> reflects this option. Or the text of the Septuagint translator may have had three consonants instead of four. His Hebrew Bible may have read \u05e9\u05dc\u05d4<\/span><\/span> (shiloh<\/span>). Although this is a frequent spelling for \u201cShiloh\u201d in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint translator did not regard the word as the place name. Instead, he took the word as a combination of two<\/span> other words: \u05e9<\/span> (\u201cthat which\u201d) followed by \u05dc\u05d4<\/span> (\u201cto him\u201d or \u201cto whom\u201d). The result is typically translated, \u201cthat which to whom it belongs.\u201d When the verb (\u201che\/it comes\u201d) is added, we get something aki<\/span>n to the niv: \u201cuntil he comes to whom it belongs.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Traditional Hebrew Text<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hebrew Behind Septuagint: Option One<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Hebrew Behind Septuagint: Option Two<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u05e9\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4<\/span> (shiyloh<\/span>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u05e9\u05d9 \u05dc\u05d4<\/span> (shay loh<\/span>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u05e9\u05dc\u05d4<\/span> (she loh<\/span>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u201cunti<\/span>l Shiloh comes\u201d (nasb)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cuntil tribute comes to him\u201d (esv<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cuntil he comes to whom it belongs\u201d (niv)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Both of the possible Septuagint textual readings have a messianic flavor. They speak of a person\u2014sp<\/span>ecifically, a descendant of Judah\u2014coming to reign, or having tribute brought to him as king. While translators don\u2019t have to guess about messianic prophecy in dozens of other places, Genesis 49:10<\/a> has<\/span> kept them guessing for centuries.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Why Circumcision?<\/p>\n

Circumcision is mentioned nearly 100 times in the Bible. It is a central focus for Old Testament and New Testament theology (Rom 4:9\u201312<\/a>; Gal 2:1\u201312<\/a>; 5:1\u201310<\/a>). If we\u2019re honest, that just sounds absurd.<\/p>\n

Circumcision was the sign of God\u2019s covenant with Abraham (Gen 17:9\u201314<\/a>), but it was also widely practiced in the ancient Near East (the method, though, wasn\u2019t always the same). Jeremiah 9:25\u201326<\/a> notes that Israel\u2019s neighbors were circumcised. Archaeologists have also found that it was practiced in Syria and Phoenicia. Textual remains indicate that circumcision in Egypt goes back to at least 2200 bc, centuries before the Israelites were enslaved. Israelite men may have even submitted to Egyptian circumcision while in Egypt, since Joshua commanded the men crossing into the promised land to be re<\/em>-circumcised in order to \u201croll away the reproach of Egypt\u201d (Josh 5:2<\/a>, 9<\/a>). The evidence suggests that circumcision did not<\/em> distinguish Israelite men from their foreign neighbors.<\/p>\n

When God told Abraham to be circumcised, he was past the age of bearing children and his wife, Sarah, was incapable of having children (Gen 18:11<\/a>). Nevertheless, it would be through Sarah\u2019s womb (Gen 17:21<\/a>;18:14<\/a>) that God would fulfill His promise of innumerable offspring to Abraham (Gen 12:1\u20133<\/a>). God\u2019s covenant with Abraham could only be realized by miraculous intervention.<\/p>\n

The miraculous nature of Isaac\u2019s birth is the key to understanding circumcision as the sign of the covenant. After God made His promise to Abraham, every male member of Abraham\u2019s household was required to be circumcised (Gen 17:15\u201327<\/a>). Every male\u2014and every woman, since the males were all incapacitated for a time\u2014knew that circumcision was connected to God\u2019s promise. It probably didn\u2019t make any sense, though, until Sarah became pregnant.<\/p>\n

Everyone in Abraham\u2019s household witnessed the miracle of Isaac\u2019s birth. From that point on, every male understood why they had been circumcised: Their entire race\u2014their very existence\u2014began with a miraculous act of God. Every woman was reminded of this when she had sexual relations with her Israelite husband and when her sons were circumcised. Circumcision was a visible, continuous reminder that Israel owed its existence to Yahweh, who created them out of nothing.<\/p>\n

In the New Testament, membership in God\u2019s family is \u201ccircumcision neutral\u201d (Gal 5:6<\/a>). It is faith in Christ, not a Jewish identity signified by circumcision, that makes someone part of the Church. Paul even connects baptism to circumcision (Col 2:10\u201312<\/a>). Like circumcision, baptism is a response driven by faith. Both signs are for men and women.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>The Abandoned Child and the Basket Case<\/p>\n

In modern stories people destined for greatness rarely start off privileged. They are dropped off at the doorstep of an orphanage or abandoned in the rain. This<\/span> literary motif goes back to ancient stories, where writers use the abandoned child theme to identify a character that rises from obscurity to privileged hero status. It\u2019s a motif found in the biblical account of Moses\u2019 birth. But is that really the whole story?<\/span><\/p>\n

Moses\u2019 story begins when Pharaoh feels threatened by the growing Hebrew population in Egypt and commands that all Hebrew male infants be <\/span>killed (Exod 1:16\u201322<\/a>). Moses\u2019 mother hides her newborn son for three months and then devises a risky but calculated plan: She sets him adrift on the Nile in a small basket made of bulrushes, waterproo<\/span>fed with bitumen and pitch (2:1\u20133<\/a>). Moses\u2019 older sister, Miriam, watches as the basket floats to where the daughter of Pharaoh bathes. God uses these circumstances to bring Moses under the protection <\/span>of Egypt\u2019s ruler (2:4\u201310<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Ancient literature outside the Bible attests to several stories in which a child, perceived as a threat by an enemy, is abandoned and later spared by divine intervention or <\/span>otherworldly circumstance. Roughly 30 stories like this survive from the literature of ancient Mesopotamia, Canaan, Greece, Egypt, Rome and India.<\/p>\n

The Mesopotamian work known as the Sargon Birth Legen<\/span>d offers the most striking parallels to the biblical story. It relates the birth story of Sargon the Great, an Akkadian emperor who ruled a number of Sumerian city-states around 2000 bc, centuries bef<\/span>ore the time of Moses. The infant boy is born into great peril: His mother is a high priestess, and he is illegitimate. Consequently, his mother sets him adrift on a river in a reed basket. The boy is rescued and ra<\/span>ised by a gardener named Akki in the town of Kish. He becomes a humble gardener in Akki\u2019s service until the goddess Ishtar takes an interest in him, setting him on the path to kingship.<\/span><\/p>\n

Some assume that the biblical story of Moses\u2019 birth was based on the Sargon Birth Legend, but this is unlikely. Although ancient Sumerian accounts of Sargon the Great date back to his lifetime, the l<\/span>egendary account of his birth is known from only four fragmentary tablets\u2014three from the Neo-Assyrian period (934\u2013605 bc) and one from the Neo-Babylonian period (626\u2013539 bc). During the Neo-Assyrian p<\/span>eriod an Assyrian king took the name Sargon II and likely commanded the legends to be written about his namesake (722\u2013705 bc). By doing so, he would have linked himself to the ancient hero and glorifi<\/span>ed himself as a \u201crevived Sargon\u201d figure. This would suggest that the birth legend was composed for propaganda purposes well after the biblical story of Moses.<\/p>\n

The existence of stories like the Sargon <\/span>Birth Legend help us understand the biblical story. They show that the abandoned child theme was a popular literary strategy for the ancients. They used it to introduce a figure who rises from mundane origins <\/span>after gaining favor from fate or the divine. The common elements in these rags-to-riches stories helped ancient audiences identify with the central figure and develop respect for his achievem<\/span>ents.<\/p>\n

Moses\u2019 story is about more than parallels, though. While Moses briefly seems to find favor and protection in the household of Pharaoh, a quasi-divine figure for the Egyptians, his life takes a s<\/span>urprising turn. He ends up leaving the kingdom of Egypt fearing that Pharaoh will kill him. From there, the story is repatterned: In a wilderness of Midian, Yahweh appears to Moses, now an obscure shepherd \u201cslow of speech and of tongue\u201d (<\/span>4:10<\/a>). He tells Moses to act as His spokesperson before Pharaoh and lead His people out of Egypt.<\/p>\n

Moses stands out against the stories of the ancient cultures bec<\/span>ause he isn\u2019t promoted like their chosen figures, but saved and demoted to poverty so that he can lead others to salvation. He is the new archetype of the chosen hero\u2014one who is promoted only for the benefit of others. Over and against the stories of worldly kingd<\/span>oms, Moses\u2019 story articulates God\u2019s remarkable work for His kingdom. His values are different from ours, and as is often the case in retrospect, we can be grateful for that.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

A Tale of Courage We Never Teach<\/p>\n

Moses\u2019 encounter with God in Exodus 4:21\u201326<\/a> is arguably one of the strangest, most confusing events recorded in the Bible. In this passage, Moses is en route to Egypt\u2014seemingly following God\u2019s call to deliver the Israelites from Pharaoh\u2019s vice-like grip. But then something shocking happens:<\/p>\n

And the Lord said to Moses, \u201cWhen you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. Then you shall say to Pharaoh, \u2018Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, \u201cLet my son go that he may serve me.\u201d If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.\u2019\u00a0\u201d<\/p>\n

At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son\u2019s foreskin and touched Moses\u2019 feet with it and said, \u201cSurely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!\u201d So he let him alone. It was then that she said, \u201cA bridegroom of blood,\u201d because of the circumcision.<\/p>\n

This passage is not only difficult and confusing, but it raises numerous questions. Why would God want to kill Moses right after calling him to deliver Israel? In addition to this theological conundrum, there are other uncertainties. We\u2019re startled and confused when Zipporah, Moses\u2019 wife (Exod 2:21<\/a>), deals with this threat by immediately circumcising her son Gershom and touching the foreskin to Moses\u2019 \u201cfeet.\u201d What does that mean? And why would her action pacify God\u2019s wrath?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Doing the Wrong Thing: Moses\u2019 Negligence<\/p>\n

If we look at the original Hebrew text of this passage, we would notice that the name Moses does not actually appear in the phrase translated as \u201ctouched Moses\u2019 feet.\u201d The text literally reads, \u201ctouched his<\/em> feet.\u201d Consequently, Zipporah could have taken the foreskin and touched either Moses or Gershom, which would affect our interpretation. However, since Moses is the major character in the wider context, it seems logical to conclude that God is angry with Moses, not Gershom.<\/p>\n

Why is God angry? We can infer the answer from two considerations: the difference between Egyptian circumcision and that prescribed by the Abrahamic covenant (Josh 5:2\u20139<\/a>; see Gen 17<\/a>), and the circumstances of Moses\u2019 birth and childhood (Exod 1\u20132<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Circumcision was practiced in Egypt, but Egyptian circumcision did not remove the foreskin; instead, the foreskin was split. Any Israelite born in Egypt who was circumcised in this way would not have been in accordance with God\u2019s covenant. Since Joshua 5:2<\/a> says some Israelite men were being circumcised \u201ca second time,\u201d we can infer that something was unacceptable about their Egyptian circumcision. Therefore, the ceremony in Joshua 5<\/a> would be a second circumcision for some men, but the first circumcision for those males born in the wilderness (Josh 5:4<\/a>). Circumcision was not only a sign for Israelite men, but also for women, who needed to be certain they were marrying Israelites and not men who worshiped other gods. Every married Israelite man was thus a \u201cbridegroom of blood\u201d\u2014a man who had undergone the blood ritual of circumcision.<\/p>\n

Since the other Israelite males were circumcised prior to the conquest at Gilgal (some a \u201csecond time\u201d; Josh 5:2<\/a>), we can reasonably assume that Moses had never been circumcised or was circumcised according to Egyptian custom. Had he been marked by Hebrew circumcision, he would likely have been in danger in Pharaoh\u2019s household.<\/p>\n

God\u2019s anger at Moses in Exodus 4<\/a> is apparently due to Moses\u2019 negligence in obeying God\u2019s covenant ritual as a free man in Midian after he had fled Egypt. Exodus informs us that the Midianites knew the God of Sinai and practiced circumcision\u2014Zipporah knew how to perform the ritual (Exod 4:25<\/a>). Since God chose Moses as His representative to deliver Israel, Moses\u2019 laxity in covenant obedience became an issue.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

Doing the Right Thing: Zipporah\u2019s Courage<\/p>\n

What about the meaning of touching the foreskin to the \u201cfeet\u201d? This is not part of the normal circumcision ritual. However, the Hebrew word translated \u201cfeet\u201d (\u05e8\u05d2\u05dc<\/span>, regel<\/em>) is also used as a euphemism for genitalia or genital functions, including sexual exposure (see Judg 3:24<\/a>; 1 Sam 24:3<\/a>; Ezek 16:25<\/a>; Ruth 3:4<\/a>, 7<\/a>). The phrase in Exodus 4:25<\/a> makes sense only if Zipporah circumcised her son, Gershom, and then symbolically transferred that circumcision to Moses by taking the foreskin and touching Moses\u2019 genitals.<\/p>\n

Performing this rite was not only prudent, but courageous. Circumcision in Israel was performed only by religious duty\u2014and only by men. Moses had neglected the ritual, and now he, Zipporah, and little Gershom were already on the road back to Egypt. A circumcised Moses would be unable to travel, so Zipporah performed the ritual on Gershom and, symbolically, on Moses. Her deed was unprecedented, but necessary. Zipporah acted in faith, and God relented. She saved Moses\u2019 life and also atoned for his negligence. Moses was now a proper \u201cbridegroom of blood.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Will It Preach?<\/p>\n

We shouldn\u2019t shy away from the difficult passages of Scripture. By exploring the context of this passage, we understand that God\u2019s anger is not capricious or unreasonable. This odd episode also presents us with several lessons. We must not neglect to do what God requires. Had Moses been obedient to the covenant ritual of circumcision after leaving Egypt, his life\u2014and his role as God\u2019s servant\u2014would not have been in danger. We also need the courage to do what\u2019s right, even if it seems out of place. Failure in any of these regards will create obstacles to God\u2019s desire to use us for His glory.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Counting the Ten Commandments<\/p>\n

One of the most enduring elements of the Bible and the Judaeo-Christian worldview within Western culture is the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments. Even if one can\u2019t recite <\/span>them all, most people have seen the fiery finger of God etch the commandments into two stone tablets as Moses\u2014for many of us, Charlton Heston\u2014watches in awe.<\/p>\n

It seems to go without saying that the lis<\/span>t of the Ten Commandments is something that Judaism and Christianity have always agreed upon. Well, that is not exactly true.<\/p>\n

Historically speaking, Jews and Christians\u2014and even denominations within C<\/span>hristianity\u2014have disagreed on exactly how the Ten Commandments should be listed and expressed. In fact, how to precisely spell out the commandments was an issue of considerable importance during the Protestant Reformation. The difference concerns how many commands are to be<\/span> found in the first six verses and last two verses of Exodus 20:2\u201317<\/a>, the initial listing of the commandments received by Mose<\/span>s at Sinai.1<\/a> One point of context is required before we can understand the thinking behind the differences in the listing and expression of the commandments. Any listing of the commandments must resul<\/span>t in a total of ten, because three other passages of Scripture fix the number of commandments at ten. Exodus 34:28<\/a>, Deuteronomy 4:13<\/a>, and Deuteronomy 10:4<\/a> each clearly tell us that God gave Moses \u02bfase<\/span><\/span>reth hadvarim<\/span> (\u201cten words\u201d; \u201cten statements\u201d) at Sinai.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, the Jewish tradition treats the statement in Exodus 20:2<\/a> (compare Deut 5:6<\/a>) as a command when the wording has no imperative force<\/span> to it at all. This latitude arises from the fact that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament exclusively uses \u02bfasereth hadvarim<\/span> (\u201cten words\u201d) instead of \u02bfasereth hamitsvot<\/span> (\u201cten commandments\u201d) with res<\/span>pect to the contents of Exodus 20<\/a> and Deuteronomy 5<\/a>. After regarding Exodus 20:2<\/a> as the first \u201cword\u201d of the ten, verses 3\u20136<\/a> are then thematically understood as speaking to a single prohibition: making<\/span> idols for worship.<\/p>\n

There are actually three imperative statements in this group of verses (\u201cYou shall have no other gods before me\u201d; \u201cYou shall not make for yourself a carved image\u201d; \u201cYou shall not b<\/span>ow down to them or serve them\u201d), but to consider them as separate commands would move the total beyond ten.<\/p>\n

Christian perceptions of Exodus 20<\/a> are not rooted in the Hebrew terminology \u02bfasereth hadvari<\/span><\/span>m<\/span> (\u201cten words\u201d), and so Christian formulations do not regard verse one as the first point of the Decalogue. As a result, all of Exodus 20:2\u20136<\/a> is considered the starting point, and the imperative wordi<\/span>ng (\u201cYou shall not\u201d) prompted the \u201ccommandment\u201d terminology so widely known and used today.<\/p>\n

The enumeration adopted by Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism originated with Augustine. While <\/span>they prefer it, the enumeration of Augustine is not a point of dogma. Section 2066<\/a> of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is representative of the acknowledgement that \u201cThe division and numbering of <\/span>the Commandments have varied in the course of history.\u201d2<\/a> Reformed Protestants and Greek Orthodox Christians also reject verse 1<\/a> as a command, but distinguish verse 3<\/a> from verses 4\u20136<\/a> as the first and s<\/span>econd commands. This position is likewise not dogmatically taken.<\/p>\n

The last two verses are the other major point of divergence in expressing the number and contents of the commandments. Roman Catholici<\/span>sm, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism divide Exodus 20:17<\/a> into two commands to achieve the number ten, a necessity in view of seeing Exodus 20:2\u20136<\/a> as the first command. This dichotomy is perhaps puzzling, <\/span>since the entirety of the content of verse 17<\/a> speaks about one\u2019s household and possessions, and in light of the thematic grouping at the beginning of the Decalogue. Thematic grouping at the beginning <\/span>of the Decalogue and thematic splitting at the end doesn\u2019t make sense\u2014unless one keeps in mind the need to wind up with ten!<\/p>\n

Despite the numerical disagreement over how to count the commandments, the <\/span>moral core of the Judaeo-Christian ethic has never been in doubt among those Jews and Christians who take the Bible seriously. A lack of certainty on how to count the Ten Commandments is no impediment<\/span> to understanding their importance for honoring God and our fellow human beings.3<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Is There Really a Sin Offering?<\/p>\n

Hebrews 10:4<\/a> asserts, \u201cIt is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins,\u201d but Leviticus seems to tell a different story. Even casually reading the bo<\/span>ok, we notice that Israelites who bring proper sacrifices \u201cshall be forgiven\u201d (e.g., Lev 4:20<\/a>, 26<\/a>, 31<\/a>, 35<\/a>; 5:10<\/a>, 13<\/a>, 16<\/a>, 18<\/a>). Have we reached an impasse?<\/p>\n

Rather than labeling this a contradiction, we <\/span>might examine our own perceptions of Old Testament sacrifices\u2014specifically, the sin offering. \u201cSin offering\u201d is a translation of the Hebrew term chatta\u02bet<\/span> (\u05d7\u05b7\u05d8\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05ea<\/span>), which has the basic meaning of \u201cto <\/span>miss the mark\u201d or \u201cto fall short.\u201d In using a traditional, familiar rendering, many English Bible translations cause us to misunderstand this sacrifice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Goal of the Sin Offering<\/p>\n

The label \u201csin offering\u201d assumes that the goal of this sacrifice was forgiveness for moral failures or violations\u2014sins as we think of them. Leviticus reveals this is not the case. The sin offering was used in cases where people suffered from a bodily discharge (Lev 15<\/a>), at the dedication of a new altar (Lev 8<\/a>), or when a Nazirite completes a vow of abstinence (Lev 12<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The real goal of the sin offering was ritual purification. It was designed to guard sacred space\u2014territory sanctified by God\u2019s presence\u2014from infection by impurity. By definition, every person or object \u201cfalls short\u201d of divine perfection and must therefore be ritually marked as acceptable for holy ground. The sin offering\u2014better rendered as \u201cpurification offering\u201d\u2014was therefore applied to people and inanimate objects to mark them as acceptable before God. These people (and objects) were not unacceptable because they had done evil, but because they were imperfect\u2014they \u201cfell short\u201d of the holy perfection that God\u2019s presence required. The ritual reinforced the idea of the complete otherness of God.<\/p>\n

Depending on the individual\u2019s status in the community\u2014whether priest or commoner\u2014the blood of the offering was either used outside or inside the sanctuary. When the sin offering was for a priest, the blood was brought inside<\/em> the sanctuary. This signified the priest\u2019s undeserved, but now acceptable access to the holy ground of the sanctuary area. On the Day of Atonement (Lev 16<\/a>), the blood of the sin offering was brought before the mercy seat (the golden cover for the ark or the covenant) within the holy of holies\u2014not because the high priest had committed worse sins than anyone else, but because he needed closer access to the divine presence on that day. The sin offering was about purification for access to God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

What About Forgiveness?<\/p>\n

But if the sin offering of the Old Testament didn\u2019t purge people of moral guilt, what about the \u201cforgiven\u201d language? And what happened when people did evil?<\/p>\n

The verb translated<\/span> \u201cforgive\u201d (\u05e1\u05dc\u05d7<\/span>, salach<\/span>) essentially means \u201cto be positively disposed toward.\u201d In the context of purification, God now approves of the person or object entering His presence. While the verb may be use<\/span>d elsewhere to address moral guilt (e.g., Psa 25:11<\/a>), when it comes to the Levitical sacrifice itself, the point was not absolution, but acceptability for entering God\u2019s presence.<\/p>\n

Intentional violatio<\/span>ns of the moral law of God fell into two broad categories and were dealt with accordingly: those for which there was no remedy, resulting in capital punishment, and those for which restitution was required. For the latte<\/span>r, Old Testament law called for reparations to victims to restore the offender.<\/p>\n

In this context, the words of Hebrews 10:4<\/a> are right on target. Old Testament sacrifices could not p<\/span>rovide release from spiritual and moral guilt. They merely allowed people to participate in a temporary and ultimately inadequate system while teaching them about God\u2019s nature. Only Jesus\u2019 greater sacrifice could solve the real problem of our moral guilt bef<\/span>ore a holy God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>There\u2019s a Devil in the Details<\/p>\n

Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement described in Leviticus 16<\/a>, is a central element of the Jewish faith, even though it is not practiced today as it was in ancient times. A<\/span>lthough many Christians have heard of the day, most would be startled to learn that a sinister figure lurks in the shadows of Leviticus 16<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Day of Atonement ritual required a ram, a bull, and two <\/span>goats (Lev 16:3\u20135<\/a>). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev 16:3\u20134<\/a>). The bull, taken \u201cfrom the herd,\u201d served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this <\/span>case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near God\u2019s presence. Curiously, two goats taken \u201cfrom the congregation\u201d were needed for the single sin offering for the people (<\/span>Lev 16:5<\/a>). Elsewhere the sin offering involved only one animal (e.g., Lev 4:1\u201312<\/a>). So why two goats?<\/p>\n

The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen<\/span> as a sacrifice \u201cfor the Lord\u201d (Lev 16:8<\/a>). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated \u201cfor the Lord.\u201d On the contrary, this goat\u2014the one that symb<\/span>olically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness\u2014was \u201cfor Azazel\u201d (Lev 16:8\u201310<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Hebrew term azazel<\/span> (\u05e2\u05d6\u05d0\u05d6\u05dc<\/span>) occurs four times in Leviticus 16<\/a> but nowhere else in the Bibl<\/span>e. Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, \u201cthe goat that goes away,\u201d which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version\u2019s \u201cscapegoat.\u201d Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The \u201cscapegoa<\/span>t\u201d option is possible, but since the phrase \u201cfor Azazel\u201d parallels the phrase \u201cfor Yahweh\u201d (\u201cfor the Lord\u201d), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contras<\/span>ted by the two goats.<\/p>\n

A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness.1<\/a> T<\/span>he Mishnah (ca. ad 200; Yoma 6:6<\/a>) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would die and not return. This association of the wilderness with evil is also eviden<\/span>t in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt 4:1<\/a>). Also, in Leviticus 17:1\u20137<\/a> we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to \u201cgoat demons.\u201d The Day<\/span> of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.<\/p>\n

The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, <\/span>which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged\u2014to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to God and one goat sent to carry the p<\/span>eople\u2019s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

QUICKBIT:<\/strong> When Jesus dies on the cross for all of humanity\u2019s sins, He is cruc<\/span>ified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus dies once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Love Potion: Numbers 5<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

When\u2019s the last time you heard a sermon on Numbers 5:11\u201331<\/a>?<\/p>\n

One of the things I enjoy telling people in conversations about Bible study is that \u201cif it\u2019s weird, it\u2019s important.\u201d <\/span>This passage certainly qualifies in both respects. The strangeness of the passage is easily detectable, but only careful Bible study makes its importance apparent.<\/p>\n

Numbers 5:11\u201331<\/a> describes a water ri<\/span>tual to determine the guilt or innocence of a woman suspected of adultery. A husband is to bring the wife under suspicion to the priest, along with a required grain offering that will \u201cbring iniquity to remembrance.\u201d The <\/span>priest in turn prepares a jar of water mixed with dust from the tabernacle (5:16\u201317<\/a>). To this mixture is added the curses against her written \u201cin a book\u201d (5:23<\/a>). Either the curses<\/span> were written and erased, so that the erasures are swept into the water mixture, or the ink is washed off into the water mixture. The woman is compelled to drink the concoction after saying \u201cAmen, Amen\u201d in response to th<\/span>e priest\u2019s invocation of blessing or cursing upon her, depending on her innocence or guilt. If she is guilty, the ingested mixture will cause pain and sterility; if there is no suc<\/span>h reaction, she is deemed innocent (5:27\u201331<\/a>).1<\/a><\/p>\n

Since the instructions in Numbers 5<\/a> were given by God (5:11<\/a>), the water ordeal is a means of divination, whereby it is expected that God will use the rit<\/span>ual to answer a question human beings cannot. That the Israelites could use such divination comes as no surprise, as the high priest had the Urim and Thummim at his disposal, and various biblical characters utilize the casting of lots for discerning the mind of God on a matter (<\/span>Josh 18:6\u20138<\/a>; Prov 16:33<\/a>; Acts 1:26<\/a>).2<\/a><\/p>\n

This passage provides a useful starting point for discussing why biblical character<\/span>s were permitted to practice divination at all, when elsewhere such methods are condemned (e.g., Deut 18:9\u201314<\/a>).3<\/a> But let\u2019s instead focus on one practical implication of this passage.<\/p>\n

Students of the B<\/span>ible know that adultery was punishable by death in ancient Israel (Lev 20:10\u201311<\/a>). Surprisingly, death is not the penalty for the guilty woman in Numbers 5:11\u201331<\/a>. The normal word for adultery (\u05e0\u05d0\u05e3<\/span>, na\u02be<\/span><\/span>af<\/span>)\u2014the word used in connection with the death penalty\u2014does not occur in this passage, further distancing it from being a capital crime. Why these discrepancies?<\/p>\n

The answer lies in the fact that the g<\/span>uilty woman was not discovered in the act of adultery (5:13<\/a>). Since this is the case, the community and, particularly, the angry husband, is effectively prohibited by the law of the water ordeal from <\/span>taking matters into their own hands. This would serve as a protection for women suspected of adultery, or who might be the target of someone\u2019s animosity or jealousy. The point is that secret adultery can and will be punished only by God.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Is My Bible Right?<\/p>\n

After the great flood, everyone had one language. Humanity congregated in the region of Babylonia (\u201cthe land of Shinar\u201d) and started building a tower that would reach into the heave<\/span>ns (Gen 11:1\u20139<\/a>). God stopped the project by transforming the single language into many\u2014dispersing humanity over the earth and creating the nations and regions listed in Genesis 10<\/a>. Most people think i<\/span>t ends there, but there\u2019s more. The story picks up again in Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139<\/a>. And the story changes, depending on what Bible version you use.<\/p>\n

When the Most High apportioned the nations as an inherit<\/span>ance, when he divided up humankind, he established the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God<\/em>. But the Lord\u2019s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.1<\/a><\/p>\n

Some Bible<\/span>s may read \u201csons of Israel\u201d instead of \u201csons of God.\u201d The difference is due to an ancient manuscript disagreement with major theological ramifications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Deuteronomy 32:8<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Masoretic Text<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Dead Sea Scrolls<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

When he divided humanity<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

When he divided humanity<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

He fixed the borders of the peoples<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

He fi<\/span>xed the borders of the peoples<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

according to the number of the sons of Israel<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

according to the number of the sons of God<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Deuteronomy 32:43<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Masoretic Text<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Dead Sea Scrolls<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[1a] O nations<\/strong>, acclaim His p<\/strong><\/span>eople!<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[1a] Rejoice, O heavenly ones<\/strong> with Him!<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[1b] MISSING<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[1b] Bow down, all you gods, before Him!<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[2a] For he will avenge the blood of his servants;<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[2a] For he will avenge the blood of his sons;<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[<\/span>2b] He will exact vengeance on his adversaries,<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[2b] He will exact vengeance on his adversaries<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[3a] MISSING<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[3a] He will repay those who hate him,<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

[3b] And make atonement for his land<\/strong> [and] his peopl<\/span>e.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

[3b] And make atonement for his people\u2019s land.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Is It Accurate?<\/p>\n

Most English Bibles have \u201csons of Israel\u201d or something similar because the translation is based on the traditional Hebrew text of the Old Testament, known to us as the Masoretic Text. But how does God dividing humankind and fixing the boundaries of the peoples \u201caccording to the number of the sons of Israel\u201d make any sense? Deuteronomy 32:8<\/a> hearkens back to what happened at Babel\u2014and Israel did not exist at that time! If you read through the \u201cTable of Nations\u201d in Genesis 10<\/a>, Israel does not even appear.<\/p>\n

\u201cSons of God\u201d is the reading in two other older manuscripts: the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, a set of manuscripts discovered in the desert not too far from Jerusalem. Bible translators agree that \u201csons of God\u201d is the more original reading, but they usually place it in a footnote at Deuteronomy 32:8<\/a>, not in the actual text. The English Standard Version (esv), though, and others, place \u201csons of God\u201d into their translation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Why Is There a Difference?<\/p>\n

Deuteronomy 32:8<\/a> is a textbook example of how later scribes sometimes changed the biblical text in a misguided attempt to \u201cprotect\u201d God\u2019s reputation.2<\/a> Other parts of Deutero<\/span>nomy were also changed by scribes (e.g., 32:43<\/a>). When you line up the Dead Sea Scroll reading with the Masoretic Text\u2014the traditional Hebrew text most English translations are based upon\u2014you can see t<\/span>hat the original was altered.<\/p>\n

Notice that Deuteronomy 32:43<\/a> in the Dead Sea Scrolls has three poetic pairings. Since it\u2019s a poetic section, the symmetry is not only important, it\u2019s expected. The Masor<\/span>etic Text reading has removed or altered parts of two of the pairings. The first, as in Deuteronomy 32:8<\/a>, eliminates references to other divine beings (\u201csons of God\u201d in 32:8<\/a>; \u201cheavenly ones\u201d and \u201cgods<\/span>\u201d in 32:43<\/a>). At some point, a scribe thought this reference to other gods was theologically offensive.3<\/a> The first line of the final pairing was removed because someone hating God was also offensive.<\/p>\n

G<\/span>od, of course, doesn\u2019t need to be protected by a zealous scribe or anyone else. Israel\u2019s doctrine was that Yahweh was unique and above all other divine beings (Pss 29:1<\/a>; 89:5\u20137<\/a>). In a severe judgment,<\/span> the nations at Babel were disinherited by Yahweh and given over to the administration of other gods (Deut 4:19\u201320<\/a>; 32:8<\/a>), whose actions would be judged by the God of Israel (Psa 82:1<\/a>, 6<\/a>). This paved <\/span>the way for God to create a new people, Israel, in the very next chapter of Genesis. And ironically, it was through Abraham\u2019s seed that the disinherited nations would be reclaimed (Gen 12:1\u20133<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

QUICKB<\/strong><\/span>IT:<\/strong> Does your Bible have the reading from the Dead Sea Scrolls?<\/p>\n

\u2022 Include \u201cSons of God\u201d: ESV<\/a>, RSV, NRSV, NLT, NET, Message, Good News<\/p>\n

\u2022 Include \u201cSons of Israel\u201d: NIV, ASB, NASB, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, NCV, <\/span>Tanakh, 1890 Darby, Young\u2019s Literal, God\u2019s Word Translation, AV (1873)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

The Most Horrific Bible Story<\/p>\n

\u201cIn those days, there was no king in Israel.\u201d This line, repeated throughout Judges, frames the horrific tale of the Levite and his concubine. The grim details of this story showcase the anarchy and spiritual decay of the period, but this story is not just a cheap thriller.<\/p>\n

When reading this story, our attention fixates on the grim details of murder, rape, war, and abduction. But there are crucial, less repugnant elements\u2014tribal affiliations and the locations of events. The story was designed to prompt readers into favoring kingship\u2014the people needed a Messiah, a savior.<\/p>\n

The book of Judges does not name its author; it was likely written after the time of David. All of these elements add up to not only a rationale for kingship\u2014but a polemic for the superiority of a king from Judah (David), not Benjamin (Saul) or Ephraim.<\/p>\n

By the time Judges was being written, Saul had failed God as a spiritual leader. Anyone reading the story would be prompted to follow God\u2019s new choice of kingship, the line of David. Any other ruler would spell chaos, evil and tragedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

The Events in the Story<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

What Does This Teach Us?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

In Judges 19\u201320<\/a>, a Levite is retrieving his fugitive concubine from her father\u2019s house in Bethlehem, located in the tribal territory of Judah.<\/p>\n

The concubine\u2019s father, who is from Judah, treats the Levite with warm hospitality.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

The Levite is shown warm hospitality in Judah, David\u2019s tribe.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

The Levite and his concubine travel home to Ephraim. On the way, he has the option to stay in the city of Jebus, a Benjamite territory.<\/p>\n

He decides not to remain since Jebus is under the rule of Gentiles, non-Hebrews.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

The Levite could have stopped in Jebus\u2014which is later known as Jerusalem. It is a missed oasis in the hellish sea of Benjamin.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

He journeys on to Gibeah, also a Benjamite territory. In Gibeah, an old man\u2014also from Ephraim\u2014offers refuge to the Levite and his concubine (19:15\u201316<\/a>).<\/p>\n

A throng of wicked men surround the old man\u2019s house and demand that the Levite be surrendered to them so they could molest him.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

The Benjamite rapists of Gibeah are clearly wicked. Saul, the first king of Israel, belonged to the tribe of Benjamin.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

The old man offers his virgin daughter and the Levite\u2019s concubine to them to avoid their disgraceful demand, but they refuse (19:23\u201325<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Levite forces his concubine outside to satisfy them. He finds her dead at the door of the house the next morning. Without a hint of remorse or compassion, he piles her on his donkey (19:25\u201328<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

The Levite, from Ephraim, is a villain. Ephraim is associated with the renegade northern kingdom of Israel that forsook the line of God\u2019s anointed, David. The old man, also from Ephraim, is yet another villain.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

After arriving home, the Levite cuts her body into 12 pieces and sends a piece to each Israelite tribal territory. He is summoning tribal leadership to meet and decide on retaliation (19:29\u201320:7<\/a>).<\/p>\n

All the tribes are outraged, except one. The tribe leaders of Benjamin, in whose territory Gibeah is located, boycott the assembly and refuse to surrender the men of Gibeah (20:2\u20133<\/a>, 12\u201313<\/a>). The result is a fratricidal war, and all but 600 men of Benjamin are annihilated (20:14\u201348<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

The Benjamite leaders that refuse to attend the tribal assembly and turn over the men of Gibeah are wicked.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The appalling nature of this story provides an appropriate context for God\u2019s plan of redemption. It sets the worst of human nature against the need for divine rule. That would come in Old Testament times in the form of David, the chosen king, the man after God\u2019s own heart. And from David, God would produce the King of kings, Jesus, whose mission was to save all humanity, not just Israel, from the curse of sin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

QUICKBIT:<\/strong> This story mirrors the events in Genesis 19<\/a>. The men of Sodom surrounded Lot\u2019s house and demanded the visiting men\u2014actually angels\u2014be handed over. Lot offered his two virgin daughters instead. Because of their wickedness, Sodom was destroyed. Does this mean that God will destroy Gibeah too? The story shows the dire need for a king.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Righting a Wrong<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The story of Jephthah and his tragic vow is paralleled by other stories\u2014including a New Testament story that subverts it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Story<\/p>\n

After the brief judgeship of Jair (a man from Gilead), the people of Israel fell into idolatry by worshiping foreign gods (Judg 10:6<\/a>). God then allowed a foreign enemy to oppress the Israelites as punishment. This time it was the Ammonites, who lived on the other side of the Jordan in a place also known as Gilead. The people immediately called on God for deliverance. Ironically, God responded by calling Jephthah, another judge from Gilead.<\/p>\n

In Judges 11<\/a>, Jephthah sends a message to the king of the Ammonites. He wonders why the king is not content with the land that his god Chemosh had given to the Ammonites. Jephthah\u2019s plea is flawed: Milkom was the chief deity of Ammon\u2014not Chemosh. It won\u2019t be the last time he makes a theological blunder.<\/p>\n

When Jephthah leads Israel against Ammon, the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him for battle. Just before the fight, he utters his horrible vow: \u201cIf you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord\u2019s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering\u201d (11:30\u201331<\/a>). Upon his victorious return, it is his only child, his daughter, who greets him.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The Story Behind the Story<\/p>\n

The ancient Israelites believed that geographical areas and nations were under the dominion of other gods, put there by Yahweh, the God of Israel, who had rejected the natio<\/span>ns as His people (Deut 4:19\u201320<\/a>; 32:8\u20139<\/a>). The Jephthah episode reflects that worldview.<\/p>\n

Judges 11:10\u201311<\/a> tells us that the Israelites worshiped other gods, including Milkom. Human sacrifices were made t<\/span>o Milkom. Through his own theological ignorance, Jephthah wound up performing a human sacrifice, per Ammonite Milkom worship, to fulfill his foolish vow to Yahweh. He had Yahweh in view, but his perspective on worship was warped. Remember, at this time there was no king, no spiritual leadership, a<\/span>nd no centralized system of worship.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Story Repurposed<\/p>\n

The tragedy of Jephthah is repurposed in the New Testament story of Jesus raising the daughter of Jairus (Luke 8:40\u201356<\/a>). The details are subtle but theologically powerful.<\/p>\n

As was the case in the original Jephthah story, this repurposing is about which god is king, and what territory is his rightful domain. Jesus is showing that Gilead is being taken back by the true God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Commo<\/strong>n Elements<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Jephthah Story<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jairus Story<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Jephthah\u2019s only daughter<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jairus\u2019 only daughter (Luke 8:42<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Preceded as judge by Jair (spelled in the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, as \u0399\u03b1\u03ca\u03c1<\/span>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jairus (spelled in Greek as \u0399\u03b1\u03ca\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2<\/span>)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Land of Jephthah = Gilead (Judg 11:1<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Land of Jair = Gilead (Judg 10:3\u20135<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Gilead = east of the Jordan, ruled by the Ammonites in Jephthah\u2019s day<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jairus encounters Jesus on the shore of the sea of Galilee, after Jesus\u2019 return from Gerasa\/Gadara = Gilead in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Contrasting Elements<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Jephthah Story<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jairus Story<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

An Israelite leader who worships Yahweh in the manner of false gods<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

A Jewish leader who embraces Jesus<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Selfish vow results in the human sacrifice of his daughter<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Unselfishly pleads to Jesus for the life of his daughter<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

An Israelite girl is sacrificed to a foreign god<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

A Jewish girl is raised by the true God incarnate<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Daughter dies<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Daughter raised to life<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Immediately before the Jairus story in Luke\u2019s account, Jesus casts out an unclean spirit in Gerasa\/Gedara. In Old Testament times, this place was called Gilead. In Jephthah\u2019s day, this was the territory of the Ammonites who worshiped Milkom, devourer of children. This is also the only Gospel event in which Jesus is addressed as \u201cson of the Most High\u201d\u2014the title of God referenced in the Old Testament when the nations were divided and their people were put under other gods (Deut 32:8\u20139<\/a>). The casting out of demons marked the onset of the kingdom of God in the Gospels (Matt 12:28<\/a>). By casting out these demons in what used to be Gilead, Jesus is asserting His kingly dominion over that place.<\/p>\n

On His way back from accomplishing that mission, Jesus meets Jairus, whose daughter has died. Seeing his faith, Jesus raises his daughter. The gospel writer is, in literary terms, reversing the other horror of Gilead: the human sacrifice of Jephthah\u2019s daughter.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

When Giants Walked the Earth<\/p>\n

If they haven\u2019t read it, most people have at least heard the story of David and Goliath of Gath (\u201cthe Gittite\u201d). The names of the hero and villain have iconic status. But how many people know anything about the giant Goliath, other than that he lost his head to a boy named David from Israel?<\/p>\n

Second Samuel 21:15\u201322<\/a> and 1 Chronicles 20:4\u20138<\/a> tell us that there were other unusually tall warriors among the Philistines.1<\/a> The lists are not identical, but putting them together we read that there were four: Saph (also called Sippai), Lahmi, Ishbibenob, and an unnamed warrior. The descriptions are similar to that given Goliath, noting \u201cgreat stature\u201d and the dimensions of their weaponry. Unlike Goliath or any of the other named warriors, the unnamed giant is said to have six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. This malformation, known as polydactylism, is only mentioned in the description of this giant. The Bible does not mention it when it discusses other giant clans.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Wait a minute\u2014giant clans<\/em>?<\/p>\n

There are several people groups described as giants or among whom giants lived in the Old Testament:2<\/a><\/p>\n

1. There are the Anakim, who are descendants from the Nephilim mention<\/span>ed in Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> (compare Num 13:33<\/a>), and whom the people of Israel encountered under Moses, and later under Joshua (Num 13:22\u201333<\/a>; Josh 15:13\u201314<\/a>).<\/p>\n

2. At one time, before the children of Israel trav<\/span>eled through the Transjordan, the land to the east of the Jordan River was heavily populated with tall people known as Emim (Deut 2:10\u201311<\/a>) and the Zamzummim, also called the Zuzim (Deut 2:20<\/a>).<\/p>\n

3. The <\/span>Amorites, another group that stood in the way of Israel claiming the promised land, are described as being exceptionally tall (Amos 2:9\u201310<\/a>).<\/p>\n

4. Lastly, there were the Rephaim, which are mentioned near<\/span>ly 20 times, most often in association with the conquest of the promised land, when Moses encountered King Og of Bashan, whose bed measured to 13 feet in length (Deut 2:11<\/a>, 20\u201322<\/a>; 3:11\u201313<\/a>; Josh 12:4<\/a>; <\/span>13:13<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Goliath was Rephaim. He and the four giant warriors listed alongside him are descended from rapha<\/em> (\u05e8\u05e4\u05d4<\/span>) in Gath (2 Sam 21:22<\/a>; 1 Chr 20:8<\/a>). If rapha<\/em> is interpreted as a proper name, Rapha, then<\/span> the four warriors were all brothers of Goliath. The biblical text does not actually say this. Only one of these men, Lahmi, is specifically said to be the brother of Goliath. Therefore, it is best to translate the term as \u201cgiants\u201d or \u201cRephaim\u201d <\/span>as many English translations do.<\/p>\n

Some of the Rephaim giants survived the wars of Moses and Joshua, and their descendants settled in the Philistine city of <\/span>Gath. The other warriors who accompanied Goliath may not have been brothers, but they were all part of an enduring and unusual lineage that challenged Israel for their land and opposed their God.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>The Divine Arrow<\/p>\n

Few characters in the Bible are as maligned for their wickedness as King Ahab of Israel. While Ahab\u2019s predecessors \u201cdid evil in the sight of the Lord,\u201d Ahab had an agenda: \u201c[He] did m<\/span>ore to provoke the Lord, the God of Israel, to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him\u201d (1 Kgs 16:33<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Ahab\u2019s rule includes Baal worship, forbidden foreign covenants (Syria) and foreign<\/span> alliances (Jezebel), and the murder of Naboth. In 1 Kings 22<\/a>, the prophet Micaiah warns Ahab of his impending fate. This isn\u2019t run-of-the-mill prophecy. It\u2019s mixed with a vision of how God came to th<\/span>e final details of His decision: a divine boardroom discussion.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Yes-Men and Yahweh\u2019s Man<\/p>\n

The 12 tribes of Israel had been split into two kingdoms for a century by the time Ahab took the throne (ca. 869 bc). Ahab ruled the northern kingdom (called Israel or Ephraim<\/span>), which often fought with the southern kingdom, Judah. After peace reigned between Israel and Judah for three years (22:1<\/a>), Ahab decided he wanted to capture the city of Ramoth in Gilead from the Ara<\/span>means. He asked Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, for military assistance.<\/p>\n

Jehoshaphat agreed to the battle for political reasons, but he wanted assurance that God was in the endeavor (22:5<\/a>). The 400 pr<\/span>ophetic yes-men Ahab consulted endorsed the idea, but Jehoshaphat wanted another opinion (22:6<\/a>, 11\u201312<\/a>). Ahab agreed to summon Micaiah, the prophet of Yahweh, though he openly admitted to hating him (2<\/span>2:8<\/a>). The real prophet of Yahweh never had anything positive to say about the ungodly Ahab and his rule.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Prophecy<\/p>\n

At first Micaiah told Ahab that God loved the plan, but Ahab saw through his mockery. Apparently this was not the first time: \u201cHow many times shall I make you swear that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?\u201d (22:16<\/a>). Micaiah proceeded to tell Ahab he was about to meet his Maker, so chances are good he wanted Ahab to go through with the battle, knowing the end result.<\/p>\n

Rebuked by Ahab, Micaiah holds nothing back, revealing to Ahab and to us the inner workings of God\u2019s counsel:<\/p>\n

\u201cI saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the Lord said, \u2018Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?\u2019 And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, \u2018I will entice him.\u2019 And the Lord said to him, \u2018By what means?\u2019 And he said, \u2018I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.\u2019 And he said, \u2018You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.\u2019 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you\u201d (22:20\u201323<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The vision-prophecy shows God had decreed it was time for Ahab to die, but He allows the members of the divine assembly to weigh in on Ahab\u2019s death. Nothing in the passage compels us to conclude that the omniscient God needed input. Ahab\u2019s death was fixed and determined, but the Lord allowed the divine beings in His presence to decide on his mode of departure. This is consistent with other passages, such as Daniel 4:17\u201326<\/a>, where a decision from heaven is described as both the decree of the Most High and a decree of the watchers, the holy ones who work for God.<\/p>\n

Despite Micaiah\u2019s warning, Ahab and Jehoshaphat go into battle. Ahab opts to disguise himself as an ordinary soldier, but his ruse fails. He is killed by an arrow from a \u201ccertain man [who] drew his bow at random\u201d (1 Kgs 22:34<\/a>). In the larger scheme\u2014it\u2019s not random at all.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Promise Undelivered?<\/p>\n

When exposed to evil, we might doubt God\u2019s presence. Soldiers\u2019 accounts and memoirs often recall times of doubt as they grappled with war atrocity and, ultimately, the struggle be<\/span>tween good and evil. While Scripture is clear that good will triumph, it also says evil will win its share of battles. Second Kings 3<\/a> records a war event where evil won.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Yahweh Takes Sides<\/p>\n

Second Kings 3<\/a> describes the rebellion of Moab, led by its king, Mesha, against the monarch of the northern kingdom of Israel, King Jehoram (3:5<\/a>). Like his father Ahab, Jehoram solicited King Jehoshaphat of Judah (the southern kingdom) for assistance against his enemy (3:7<\/a>). They were joined by the king of Edom (3:9<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The invasion route\u2014\u201cby way of the wilderness of Edom\u201d\u2014is critical to the storyline. Edom was the territory settled by the descendants of the red-haired Esau (Gen 25:25<\/a>; 36:1<\/a>, 8<\/a>). \u201cEdom,\u201d a play on the word adom<\/em> (\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b9\u05dd<\/span>, \u201cred\u201d), was epitomized by the reddish soil and rock of its wilderness.<\/p>\n

By taking a circuitous approach to Moab, the invading armies must cross desert terrain without water (3:9<\/a>). Jehoshaphat called the wilderness-wandering prophet Elisha for advice (3:11\u201312<\/a>). After a testy response to Jehoshaphat\u2019s plea (3:13\u201314<\/a>), Elisha received word from Yahweh: God would supply the armies with water (3:16\u201317<\/a>). It would appear\u2014without rain\u2014in a streambed that was presently bone dry. Elisha had even better news: \u201cThis is a light thing in the sight of the Lord. He will also give the Moabites into your hand\u201d (3:18<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

No Faith, No Gain<\/p>\n

When they arrived at the place of battle, the Moabite soldiers were fooled by the pools of water that appeared red against the ground and the sun\u2019s reflection (3:21\u201322<\/a>). They assumed<\/span> it was blood and that invading armies (often enemies themselves) had erupted in battle against each other (3:23<\/a>). When the Moabites approached to strip and plunder the dead, they were ambushed by the<\/span> invading armies.<\/p>\n

In desperation, the king of Moab committed a horrible atrocity: \u201cHe took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall\u201d (3:27<\/a>). The me<\/span>aning of the next line is hotly debated: \u201cAnd there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.\u201d Why did this happen? Why wasn\u2019t Yahweh victorious? After all, El<\/span>isha had said God would give the invaders victory (3:18<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In the Old Testament, we read that the Israelites believed the gods of other nations were real, assigned to the nations by Yahweh, wh<\/span>o was superior and ruled over all other gods (Deut 32:8\u20139<\/a>). They believed these gods were demons\u2014real spiritual beings (Deut 32:17<\/a>). Given the nature of this worldview, it seems the Israelites were fr<\/span>ightened by the sacrifice and lost faith, thinking Moab\u2019s god was angry against them and would empower Moab to win because of the sacrifice.<\/p>\n

Elisha had told the kings of Israel and Judah that God woul<\/span>d help them. So why had He not? This situation isn\u2019t the first time God promises but chooses not to deliver: God had told the Israelites that they would conquer Canaan under Moses and Joshua, yet they failed because of unbelief (<\/span>Num 13<\/a>; Deut 31:1\u20137<\/a>; Josh 13:1\u20135<\/a>; Judg 1:27\u201336<\/a>). Yahweh was not defeated by the god of Moab. He was, and is, ready and able to help His people. But He will not do so if th<\/span>ey refuse to believe and act on that belief.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/span><\/span>Sanctified Dirt<\/p>\n

Elisha\u2019s healing of Naaman the leper, commander of the army of the king of Syria, is a familiar story to many (2 Kgs 5:1\u201327<\/a>). Naaman hears that Elisha, the prophet of Israel, can heal <\/span>him, so he makes the trip. When the two meet, Elisha tells him rather dismissively that he needs to take a bath in the Jordan River. Naaman doesn\u2019t take this well and prepares to go home. At the behest of some servants, he consents to dip himself in the Jordan.<\/span> He is miraculously healed by the simple act. The display of power, so transparently without sacrifice or incantation, awakens Naaman to the fact that Yahweh of Israel is the true God. Here\u2019s where the story usually ends in our telling, but that would result in the omission of one very odd detail\u2014what Naaman asks to take back home.<\/span><\/p>\n

In 2 <\/span>Kings 5:15\u201319<\/a> the elated Naaman returns to Elisha and begs him to take payment for healing him. Elisha repeatedly refuses. Finally, before embarking for Syria, Naaman makes a strange request: to load <\/span>two mules with dirt to take back with him.<\/p>\n

Dirt? I can think of a few favors I would ask of a prophet in a receptive mood, but dirt<\/em> certainly isn\u2019t one of them. The request is so odd that it\u2019s hard to<\/span> avoid wondering if Naaman needed some other kind of therapy. Why would he ask for dirt?<\/p>\n

But Naaman was completely in his right mind. In 2 Kings 5:17<\/a>, Naaman follows the request with an explanation: \u201c<\/span>for from now on your servant will not offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god but the Lord.\u201d The dirt and Naaman\u2019s new allegiance to the God of Israel are related. Naaman was a man with significa<\/span>nt duties in his home country. He couldn\u2019t stay in Israel, but he could take Israel with him. Why would he want to?<\/p>\n

Naaman\u2019s unusual request stems from the ancient\u2014and biblical\u2014conception that the ear<\/span>th is the locale for a cosmic turf war. Naaman wanted dirt from Israel because Israel was Yahweh\u2019s territory. The dirt which is Yahweh\u2019s domain is holy ground<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The idea of \u201choly ground\u201d is an importan<\/span>t element of Israelite theology. This phrase is used when Moses is in the presence of the Angel of the Lord and the God of Israel at the burning bush (Exod 3:1\u20135<\/a>) and when Joshua meets the Angel of th<\/span>e Lord (Josh 5:15<\/a>).1<\/a> More broadly, the idea derives from Deuteronomy 32:8\u20139<\/a> (compare Deut 4:19\u201320<\/a>), where we learn that when God divided up the nations at the Tower of Babel, they were allotted to \u201cth<\/span>e sons of God.\u201d2<\/a> The nations of the world were, in effect, disinherited by Yahweh as His own earthly family. Immediately after Babel, Yahweh called Abraham and the nation of Israel was created. Israel<\/span> was therefore \u201cYahweh\u2019s portion\u201d (Deut 32:9<\/a>), whereas all the other nations belong to the sons of God whom Israel was forbidden to worship. As a result, Israel was holy ground; the territory of every<\/span> other nation was not. The rest of the Old Testament is the story of God\u2019s intention to reclaim every nation on earth.<\/p>\n

Elisha understood Naaman\u2019s request and granted it without hesitation. He knew the<\/span> request came from a sincere theological change of heart. Naaman believed that \u201cThere [was] no God in all the earth but in Israel\u201d (2 Kgs 5:15<\/a>) and wanted to return to his homeland with holy ground. E<\/span>ven though he would still have to help his aged king bow before Rimmon, Naaman wanted Elisha to know his heart belonged only to the God of Elisha.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n

1003 BC Census: Who Authorized It\u2014God or Satan?<\/p>\n

One of the more vexing problems in the Old Testament is how to parse the parallel accounts of 1 Chronicles 21:1\u201317<\/a> and 2 Samuel 24:1\u201325<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n

1 Chronicles 21<\/strong>:1\u20132<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2 Samuel 24:1\u20132<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Then Satan<\/strong> stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. So David said to Joab and the commanders of the army, \u201cGo, number Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, and bring me a report, that I may know their number.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, \u201cGo, number Israel and Judah.\u201d So the king said to Joab, the commander of the army, who was with him, \u201cGo through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and number the people, that I may know the number of the people.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The two accounts are nearly identical, save for one glaring disparity: The Chronicler\u2019s version has Satan as David\u2019s instigator, while 2 Samuel names Yahweh, the God of Israel, as the provocateur. The Chronicler\u2019s account notes that David\u2019s act \u201cwas evil in the sight of God,\u201d but this line is omitted in 2 Samuel. Both accounts have God posing three punishments before David, but David leaves the decision to the Lord. The Angel of Yahweh executes a plague on the land in both versions.<\/p>\n

The two accounts are contradictory. The options for resolution are all somewhat disconcerting. If we want to blame Satan, we must identify Yahweh as Satan. The reverse strategy requires that we identify Satan with the sovereign Yahweh. If Satan can somehow be removed from the picture, then we are faced with the fact that Yahweh incited David to do something, and then punished him for doing so. Is there any way out of this mess?<\/p>\n

The solution is surprisingly straightforward. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word satan<\/span> (\u05e9\u05c2\u05d8\u05df<\/span>) is not a proper personal name. This is because the definite article in Hebrew (the word \u201cthe\u201d) is nearly always attached to it. Like English, Hebrew does not permit its definite article to be paired with a proper personal name (I don\u2019t call myself, \u201cthe Mike\u201d). The noun satan<\/span>, paired with the definite article, simply means \u201cthe adversary.\u201d1<\/a><\/p>\n

There are only a handful of places in the Hebrew Bible where satan<\/span> is n<\/em>ot<\/em> preceded by the definite article. First Chronicles 21:1<\/a> is one of them, and thus many interpreters see this as a rare instance of the being known as Satan appearing in the Old Testament. If this is the case, though, we have a blatant contradiction. There is a better explanation.<\/p>\n

The only other place in the Old Testament where satan<\/span> lacks the definite article and the term is used of a divine figure is Numbers 22:22<\/a>, where we read that the Angel of Yahweh stood in the way of Balaam and his donkey \u201cas an adversary (satan<\/span>).\u201d The Angel was opposing<\/em> Balaam; he was a divinely-appointed adversary, like the satan<\/span> in 1 Chronicles 21<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This connection between the word satan<\/span> and the Angel of Yahweh is crucial to understanding the discrepancy between 1 Chronicles 21:1<\/a> and 2 Samuel 24:1<\/a>. In both accounts, the Angel dispenses God\u2019s judgment upon David (1 Chr 21:14\u201315<\/a>; 2 Sam 24:15\u201316<\/a>). God and the Angel of the Lord were frequently identified with each other in the Old Testament (e.g., Exod 3<\/a> [compare Josh 5:13\u201315<\/a>]; Judg 6<\/a>). Thus, it seems that we don\u2019t have Satan (God\u2019s cosmic enemy) in the Chronicles passage. Instead, the writer is referring to the Angel, who is Yahweh in human form. This means that both the writers of Chronicles and 2 Samuel have Yahweh initiating the census, and there is no contradiction.<\/p>\n

One question looms, despite this solution: Why? Why would Yahweh incite David to do something for which He would later punish him? Both accounts begin by saying Yahweh was angry with Israel, not David. Yahweh chose to use David as His instrument of judgment against the nation, similar to the way He would use Nebuchadnezzar centuries later. As the Babylonian king was still accountable for His actions, so was David. Judgment (and its means) both belong to the Lord, but human agents are still accountable.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Cookin\u2019 the Books<\/p>\n

Corporations cook their books. Politicians get caught taking bribes. Scientists fudge data. Should the writer of Chronicles be judged the same way?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s widely known that the books of 1\u20132 Chronicles are a reiteration of the history of Israel found in the books of 1\u20132 Samuel and 1\u20132 Kings. What isn\u2019t as well known is that the writer of Chronicles carefully and deliberately omits any negative material about David and Solomon from his historical record. Try to find the account of David\u2019s adultery and murder of Uriah in 1 Chronicles\u2014you won\u2019t be able to.1<\/a><\/p>\n

Why would the Chronicler omit it?<\/p>\n

History written this way isn\u2019t necessarily unreliable or deceptive. If I picked up a book entitled The Native American History of the Pioneer West<\/em>, I know what I\u2019m getting. I have no reason to believe the contents will be misleading; I have every reason to believe the work is selective and incomplete. I know the book was written with a specific slant, so I won\u2019t take it as the last word on the American West.<\/p>\n

First and Second Chronicles deserves the same consideration. Those books went into the Hebrew Bible (and later bibles) along with the books of Samuel and Kings. Anyone who read their Bible would learn about the unsavory acts of David and Solomon. No one would be fooled. Deception could not possibly be the point. There was another agenda.<\/p>\n

First and Second Chronicles were written during (or shortly) after the exile of the Jews in Babylon. Israel would once again have its own nation and leadership. The writer of Chronicles wanted the new generation returning to the land to remember and keep the covenant God made with David, and remember that his dynasty had been chosen to rule. Disloyalty to David\u2019s dynasty had fractured the kingdom, producing a deviant religion and, ultimately, the destruction of Israel (Amos 7:9\u201311<\/a>). The Chronicler wanted to revive loyalty to David\u2019s line, and so David and Solomon are cast as ideal monarchs. The Chronicler didn\u2019t want to deceive, but inspire.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Slaying the Sea Monster<\/p>\n

When we think of creation, we think of everything beginning with God\u2019s spoken word\u2014as Genesis 1<\/a> tells us. But some Old Testament writers concentrate on another aspect of creati<\/span>on\u2014and a weird one at that. In Psalm 74<\/a>, in the middle of God\u2019s ordering of the sea and dry land, His establishing of the sun, moon, stars, and the seasons, we find another event: God destroying sea m<\/span>onsters.<\/p>\n

Yet God my King is from of old,<\/p>\n

working salvation in the midst of the earth.<\/p>\n

You divided the sea by your might;<\/p>\n

you broke the heads of the sea monsters on the waters.<\/p>\n

You crushed the heads of<\/span> Leviathan;<\/p>\n

you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.<\/p>\n

You split open springs and brooks;<\/p>\n

you dried up ever-flowing streams.<\/p>\n

Yours is the day, yours also the night;<\/p>\n

you have established<\/span> the heavenly lights and the sun.<\/p>\n

You have fixed all the boundaries of the earth;<\/p>\n

you have made summer and winter (Psa 74:12\u201317<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Warring the Sea Monster<\/p>\n

The reference to God breaking \u201cthe heads of the sea monster\u201d and crushing \u201cthe heads of Leviathan\u201d has led many on a desperate study of Old Testament zoology. But this, along with many other confusing Old Testament images, has a cultural context.<\/p>\n

In the ancient world, the original (\u201cprimordial\u201d) chaotic conditions of creation were often portrayed as a monstrous dragon. This is reflected in stories from ancient Babylon and Israel\u2019s closest neighbor, Ugarit (ancient Syria, just north of Israel).<\/p>\n

In the literature of ancient Ugarit, the god Baal battles Yamm<\/span>, who is portrayed as a chaotic, churning sea and a terrifying sea dragon named Tannun<\/em> or Litanu<\/em>. These terms are equivalent to the Hebrew words in Psalm 74:13\u201314<\/a>: \u201cYou divided the sea (\u05d9\u05dd<\/span>, yam<\/span>) by your might; you broke the heads of the sea monsters (\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd<\/span>, tanninim<\/span>) on the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan (\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9\u05ea\u05df<\/span>, liwyatan<\/span>).\u201d<\/p>\n

Other parallels are found elsewhere in the Old Testament. In Ugaritic stories, Litanu<\/span> is described as a \u201ctwisting serpent\u201d and a \u201cfleeing serpent.\u201d Those precise phrases are used to describe the sea beast Leviathan in the Old Testament (Isa 27:1<\/a>; Job 26:13<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

What\u2019s the Point?<\/p>\n

God didn\u2019t really fight a literal dragon at the beginning of creation. This imagery reflects the mindset of the ancient world, which viewed the sea as unpredictably violent and unabl<\/span>e to be tamed. It frightened the ancients. Only the power of a mighty God could produce a habitable world from the chaotic sea\u2014a deed portrayed as a battle with the untamed deep. God was victorious in this conflict, as told in <\/span>Psalm 74<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This imagery was intentionally repurposed throughout the Old Testament. In Isaiah 51:9\u201310<\/a>, the sea monster image (this time called \u201cRahab\u201d) is applied to the Israe<\/span>lites\u2019 escape from Egypt. It was the arm of the Lord \u201cwho cut Rahab in pieces\u201d and \u201cwho pierced the dragon (\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df<\/span>, tannin<\/span>) \u2026 [and] dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep, who made the depths of<\/span> the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over.\u201d This imagery\u2014the same imagery used in creation stories\u2014effectively describes the birth of a new nation after God\u2019s defeat of Egypt.<\/p>\n

Isaiah also describes<\/span> the end of days with the same language: \u201cIn that day the Lord \u2026 will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea\u201d (Isa 27:1<\/a>). <\/span>The book of Revelation, taking its cue from Isaiah 27:1<\/a>, describes a time when there will be \u201cno more sea<\/em>\u201d (Rev 21:1<\/a>). The elimination of all that opposes God will only come with His final reign on ea<\/span>rth. Only when the new heaven and new earth are brought into being will the violent sea monster truly be slain.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Does God Need a Co-Signer? The Witness in the Clouds<\/p>\n

We all know why co-signing a loan is required. The bank assumes that the person who is being loaned the money may not be able to repay it. Their co<\/span>mmitment or ability is in question. In the Bible, God typically swears by His own character when entering a covenant since there is no one above Him who needs to cosign the agreement (Heb 6:13<\/a>). There<\/span> is a fascinating exception to this in the book of Psalms.<\/p>\n

Psalm 89:35\u201337<\/a> repeats the covenant between God and David from 2 Samuel 7<\/a> with an addendum at the end that is not found in 2 Samuel 7<\/a>. I\u2019ve i<\/span>talicized the key phrases and arranged the verses to show their parallelism, labeling them by letters:1<\/a><\/p>\n

A I have sworn by my Holy One<\/em>;<\/p>\n

B I will not lie to David.<\/p>\n

C His descendants shall be forever<\/p>\n

C <\/span>His throne [his dynastic descendants] shall be as the sun before me.<\/p>\n

B It [David\u2019s throne] shall be established forever like the moon,<\/p>\n

A And a witness in the clouds<\/em> will be faithful.<\/p>\n

God swears a cove<\/span>nant oath to David and promises that David\u2019s descendants will forever have the right to sit on Jerusalem\u2019s throne. This promise is guaranteed by an unidentified witness in the clouds (God\u2019s \u201cHoly One\u201d). Why would God <\/span>need someone to witness an agreement He initiated? Who in heaven (\u201cthe clouds\u201d) has that authority?<\/p>\n

It was common in polytheistic religions of the ancient world to have gods witness t<\/span>he covenant agreements made by other gods.2<\/a> But there are no other gods in Israel\u2019s faith equal to or above the God of Israel. Yet Psalm 89<\/a> requires an equal to Yahweh who will uphold the covenant. Wh<\/span>o is this witness in the heavens who will be faithful to the covenant of David\u2019s eternal dynasty? Who will make sure God\u2019s promise comes to pass and never fails?<\/p>\n

The New Testament answers these questi<\/span>ons in Revelation 1:4\u20135<\/a>:<\/p>\n

John says to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, <\/span>and from Jesus Christ, the faithful<\/em> witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.<\/p>\n

Jesus, as the son of David, has fulfilled the Davidic covenant of Psalm 89<\/a>. Since the New Testa<\/span>ment presents Jesus as true deity incarnate (true God in flesh), and equal in nature with the God of the Old Testament, Jesus fulfills the role of witness-guarantor eternally.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Who Wrote the Book of Proverbs?<\/p>\n

The first book of Proverbs announces, \u201cThese are the proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel\u201d (compare Prov 10:1<\/a>; 25:1<\/a>). By its own testimony, though, the book of Proverbs had many authors: \u201cThese are the sayings of the wise [literally, wise ones]\u201d (Prov 24:23<\/a>). This same idea\u2014that the proverbs in the book were written by a number of sages\u2014is reiterated inProverbs 1:6<\/a> and 22:17<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But old traditions die hard, and the authorship of these proverbs is still debated. What role did Solomon actually play in writing this Wisdom literature?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Solomon Had a Pen Name?<\/p>\n

In some passages of Proverbs, the sages who wrote the book are named. Proverbs 30<\/a> was written by Agur, son of Jakeh (30:1<\/a>), but we know nothing else about him. Some believe Agu<\/span>r is a pen name for Solomon. However, there is little evidence to support this. The name may also be translated more commonly as \u201cthe assembler,\u201d which may point to an anonymous collector of proverbs who also wrote chapter <\/span>30<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Proverbs 31:1<\/a> informs us that King Lemuel wrote the famous chapter about the virtuous woman. In this verse, we learn that Lemuel was taught proverbs by his mother. There is <\/span>little else known about this elusive king. Jewish tradition views the writer as yet another pen name of Solomon, but there is no reliable proof for this connection.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

In the Tradition of Solomon<\/p>\n

Proverbs 25:1<\/a> provides another insight into authorship: \u201cThese also are proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied.\u201d The word translated \u201ccopied\u201d can also mean \u201ctranscribed.\u201d This suggests that some of the proverbs (perhaps chapters 25\u201329<\/a>) were produced<\/em> by scribes living in the days of Hezekiah (ca. 715\u2013687 bc), after the lifetime of Solomon.<\/p>\n

At least one anonymous sage did contribute to Proverbs. Portions of Proverbs 22\u201323<\/a> come from an Egyptian wisdom text composed before Solomon\u2019s lifetime, The Instruction of Amenemope<\/em>.1<\/a><\/p>\n

In addition, Proverbs 1:25<\/a> appears to be quoting Jeremiah 20:7<\/a> and certain portions of Zechariah 7<\/a>. However, just because there may have been later additions to the book of Proverbs doesn\u2019t mean the entire book is dated later than Solomon. There is also the possibility that Jeremiah and Zechariah were drawing on Proverbs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

In the Tradition of Egypt<\/p>\n

Because Proverbs 22\u201323<\/a> draws on an ancient Egyptian wisdom text that pre-dates Solomon, it seems likely that he may be one of the authors (Prov 1:1<\/a>; 10:1<\/a>). In addition, the l<\/span>iterary patterning in large sections of Proverbs (10:1\u201322:16<\/a>) mirrors ancient Egyptian wisdom literature, in which Egyptian scribes gave collections of sayings a formal title and prologue.<\/p>\n

So who wrot<\/span>e these proverbs? Solomon\u2014but he had good (or wise) company.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Immanuel\u2019s Mother: Virgin or Not?<\/p>\n

The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14<\/a> is among the most well-known passages in the book of Isaiah. It\u2019s also one of the most controversial, for many reasons.<\/p>\n

Therefore the Lord<\/span> himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin (\u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d4<\/span>, almah<\/span>) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s difficult to get through the Christmas or Easter season without se<\/span>eing one of the major news periodicals or educational television networks cast doubt about the meaning of almah<\/span> (\u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d4<\/span>) in Isaiah 7:14<\/a>. A favorite argument is that the Hebrew word almah<\/span> cannot mean \u201cvi<\/span>rgin\u201d but instead refers to a young woman of marriageable age\u2014without respect to prior sexual activity. The more precise word for \u201cvirgin\u201d is betulah<\/span> (\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4<\/span>), a word not used in Isaiah 7:14<\/a>. The New T<\/span>estament author Matthew, we are so often told, mistakenly assumed the term meant \u201cvirgin.\u201d His ignorance led to the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus. But are these assertions correct?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s true t<\/span>hat betulah<\/span> refers to someone who has been sexually inactive<\/em> (Lev 21:3<\/a>; Judg 21:12<\/a>; Deut 22:23<\/a>, 28<\/a>; Exod 22:15<\/a>), but does that mean almah<\/span> never<\/em> means virgin? Outside of Isaiah 7:14<\/a>, the word almah<\/span> occ<\/span>urs only six times in the Old Testament. In all but one of those occurrences, the context provides no clue as to the sexual status of the young woman or women (Gen 24:43<\/a>; Exod 2:8<\/a>; Psa 68:25<\/a>; Song 1:3<\/a><\/span>; 6:8<\/a>; Prov 30:19<\/a>). Virginity is suggested, however, in Song of Solomon 6:8<\/a>, where almah<\/span> occurs in the plural (\u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05ea<\/span>, alamot<\/span>): \u201cThere are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and virgins (\u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05ea<\/span>, alamot<\/span><\/span>) without number.\u201d<\/p>\n

The distinction between queens, concubines, and alamot<\/span> (\u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05ea<\/span>) is important. A queen was a royal wife, which obviously entails a sexual relationship with the king. A concubine was a<\/span> sexual partner who held certain privileges, but not to the level of a wife. This would suggest that the third group, the alamot<\/span>, had no sexual relationship with the king. An almah<\/span> in this text is a c<\/span>andidate to become a concubine or a wife.<\/p>\n

This is precisely what we see in the book of Esther. In Esther 2:3<\/a> and 2:8<\/a> we read that Esther was held in waiting for 12 months with \u201cyoung virgins\u201d (\u05e0\u05e2\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d1\u05ea<\/span><\/span>\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4<\/span>, na\u02bfarah betulah<\/span>) under the supervision of Hegai while the king sought a new queen. The use of na\u02bfar and betulah<\/em> indicates that a \u201cyoung woman\u201d (\u05e0\u05e2\u05e8<\/span> na\u02bfar<\/span>) could certainly be a \u201cvirgin\u201d (\u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05dc\u05d4<\/span>, be<\/span><\/span>tulah<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Esther was eventually taken from the \u201cyoung virgins\u201d under Hegai to the king for an evening liaison. Afterward, she was assigned to a \u201csecond harem\u201d supervised by Shaashgaz, who \u201cwas in charge<\/span> of the concubines\u201d (Esth 2:14<\/a>)\u2014indicating that Esther was no longer a virgin, but now a concubine. That Esther and the king had a sexual relationship during the night is clear from Esther 2:14<\/a>: \u201cShe <\/span>[Esther] would not go in<\/em> to the king again<\/em>, unless the king delighted in her and she was summoned by name.\u201d To \u201cgo in\u201d to a man or woman is a common Old Testament euphemism for sexual intercourse (e.g<\/span>., Gen 16:2<\/a>; 29:21<\/a>; 38:8<\/a>; Deut 21:13<\/a>; 25:5<\/a>; Judg 15:1<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Esther story describes the king\u2019s harem as divided into three groups: queen, concubines and young virgins. The last of those groups is descr<\/span>ibed as na\u02bfarah betulah<\/span>, \u201cyoung virgins.\u201d In parallel, Song of Songs 6:8<\/a> has the same threefold division, but uses almah<\/span> (plural: alamot<\/span>) to describe the third group. This indicates that na\u02bfarah betul<\/span><\/span>ah<\/span> and alamot<\/span> are likely both descriptions of \u201cvirgins.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, since Esther is never called an almah<\/span>, could almah<\/span> still be excluded from the Old Testament vocabulary for \u201cvirgin\u201d? For the asser<\/span>tion that \u201calmah<\/span> cannot mean virgin\u201d to be correct, na\u02bfar<\/span> and betulah<\/span> must never<\/em> overlap with almah<\/span>. But they do. In Genesis 24<\/a>, Rebekah is referred to with all three<\/em> terms (na\u02bfar<\/span> in 24:14<\/a>, betulah<\/span> in<\/span> 24:16<\/a>, and almah<\/span> in 24:43<\/a>), indicating that the terms could certainly be construed as synonymous.<\/p>\n

But do we even need the word study? In an ancient patriarchal culture, a \u201cwoman of marriageable age,\u201d<\/span> like Mary, was a female who had at least reached puberty and so was capable of bearing children. Daughters in such a culture were under close supervision and restraint. Even in today\u2019s sex-saturated culture, a significant number of girls in their teen years are virgins\u2014how much more those in a patri<\/span>archal culture? Matthew was raised in this culture\u2014and with the book of Esther\u2014so it should not surprise us that he saw no incongruity in understanding <\/span>almah<\/span> (\u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d4<\/span>) to mean \u201cvirgin.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Standing in the Council<\/p>\n

Most people think a prophet is someone empowered by God to foretell the future. No doubt, prophets announced God\u2019s intentions, but forecasting future events wasn\u2019t their primar<\/span>y job description. A prophet\u2019s chief task was to serve as God\u2019s mouthpiece to His covenant people Israel and<\/em> to her enemies. So how did someone become a prophet? Was there some sort of heavenly qualif<\/span>ication? In fact, there was.<\/p>\n

You might think the standard for a prophet was whether their words came to pass exactly as uttered (Deut 18:15\u201322<\/a>). But that\u2019s actually a by-product of the real litmus tes<\/span>t, which we read about in Jeremiah:<\/p>\n

For who among them has stood in the council (\u05e1\u05d5\u05d3<\/span>, <\/em>s\u00f4d<\/span>) of the Lord to see and to hear his word, or who has paid attention to his word and listened? [The Lord says] <\/span>\u2026 \u201cIf they had stood in my council (\u05e1\u05d5\u05d3<\/span>, <\/em>s\u00f4d<\/span>), then they would have proclaimed my words to my people\u201d (Jer 23:18<\/a>, 22<\/a>).<\/p>\n

What does it mean to \u201cstand in the council\u201d? Jeremiah elaborates: \u201cto see and to <\/span>hear his word \u2026 to pay attention to his word and listen.\u201d The one essential test of a prophet\u2014that preceded their ability to deliver a divine message\u2014was that the prophet had to see<\/em> and hear<\/em> God in Hi<\/em><\/span>s council<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In the Bible, God and His heavenly host were thought to live and conduct business in the divine throne room. This assembly, with God as its ceo, is called \u201ca divine council\u201d (Pss 82:1<\/a>; 89:5<\/span>\u20137<\/a>).1<\/a> God chose prophets and commissioned them directly for ministry. When a prophet \u201cstood in the council,\u201d they had a direct encounter with God in His throne room. This motif of \u201cstanding in the cou<\/span>ncil\u201d is a repeated pattern in the Bible.<\/p>\n

In the case of Isaiah, the prophet was transported to the throne room of Yahweh (Isa 6:1\u20136<\/a>) to receive his call to service (Isa 6:8\u20139<\/a>). For Ezekiel, the circu<\/span>mstances were reversed, with the throne of the Lord coming to him (Ezek 1:1\u201314<\/a>, 26\u201328<\/a>). Jeremiah was also commissioned via a direct encounter with God. At the beginning of his ministry the \u201cword of th<\/span>e Lord\u201d came to him (Jer 1:4<\/a>) and appointed him a prophet. The \u201cword\u201d is identified as Yahweh (Jer 1:6\u20137<\/a>) who has come in human form. He reaches out His hand to touch Jeremiah\u2019s mouth (Jer 1:9<\/a>). It wa<\/span>s this encounter that distinguished Jeremiah from false prophets.<\/p>\n

The pattern began with the first man, Adam, as Job 15:7\u20138<\/a> indicates: \u201cAre you the first man who was born? Or were you brought forth be<\/span>fore the hills? Have you listened in the council (\u05e1\u05d5\u05d3<\/span>, <\/em>s\u00f4d<\/span>) of God? Have you restricted wisdom to yourself?\u201d Eden was the abode of God and His heavenly host. If Job could say he had such access, then <\/span>he could speak with authority about his innocence.<\/p>\n

Proceeding from Adam, Enoch and Noah \u201cwalked with God\u201d (Gen 5:22<\/a>, 24<\/a>; 6:9<\/a>). The former \u201cprophesied\u201d (Jude 14\u201315<\/a>), while the latter is called a \u201cheral<\/span>d of righteousness\u201d (2 Pet 2:5<\/a>). God appeared visibly to Abraham (Gen 12:1\u20133<\/a>; 15:1\u20136<\/a>; compare Acts 7:2\u20134<\/a>), Isaac (Gen 26:1\u20135<\/a>), and Jacob (Gen 28:10\u201322<\/a>; 31:11\u201313<\/a>; 32:22\u201332<\/a>; compare Hos 12:3\u20134<\/a>). Moses w<\/span>as commissioned at the burning bush (Exod 3:1\u201315<\/a>). The elders of Israel under Moses were commissioned directly by Yahweh (Num 11:24\u201325<\/a>), as was Joshua (Deut 31:14\u201323<\/a>; Josh 5:13\u201315<\/a>). The book of Judges<\/span> records dramatic appearances to Gideon (Judg 6<\/a>) and the \u201cword\u201d of the Lord \u201cappearing\u201d to Samuel, the last of Israel\u2019s judges, when he was a boy: It \u201cstood\u201d (1 Sam 3:10<\/a>) before Samuel to inform him o<\/span>f Eli\u2019s fate.<\/p>\n

Many New Testament figures also began their ministries with a direct divine commissioning. For example, the Father and the Spirit were present at Jesus\u2019 baptism (Matt 3:16\u201317<\/a>), an event <\/span>that told astute observers that Jesus was in the prophetic line. Paul\u2019s famous encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus was crucial to proving his status as an apostle in the prophetic tradition (<\/span>Acts 9:1\u20139<\/a>; 1 Cor 9:1<\/a>; 15:8<\/a>). And it is no accident that the commissioning of the disciples at Pentecost was accompanied by divine fire (Acts 2:1\u20134<\/a>), since fire is a frequent element of div<\/span>ine throne room commissioning scenes in the Old Testament (Exod 3:1\u20133<\/a>; 24:17<\/a>; Isa 6:6\u20137<\/a>; 66:15<\/a>; Ezek 1:4<\/a>, 13<\/a>, 27<\/a>; Dan 7:9\u201311<\/a>).2<\/a><\/p>\n

Amazingly, the New Testament applies this commissioning to every believe<\/span>r. Every Christian is united to Christ and is commissioned to not only spread the gospel (Matt 28:18\u201320<\/a>), but also to be<\/em> Jesus to the world (2 Cor 3:18<\/a>; 4:11<\/a>; 2 Tim 1:9<\/a>; 1 Pet 2:21<\/a>; 2 Pet 1:4<\/a>). Every <\/span>believer is Christ\u2019s ambassador (2 Cor 5:20<\/a>), having met Christ through the gospel. As the prophets before us, we are now God\u2019s mouthpieces.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Jeremiah: Double Vision?<\/p>\n

If we look beyond the details of Jeremiah\u2019s anguish and apparently fruitless ministry, we can spot a dual emphasis in the book that bears his name: judgment and repentance. Bu<\/span>t emphasis is not the only double issue. Two full versions of the book have survived from antiquity\u2014and they diverge in many ways.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The \u201cJeremiah Problem\u201d<\/p>\n

The book of Jeremiah has come to us in two versions\u2014a Hebrew version, the Masoretic Text, and a Greek version, the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament). Our modern English Bibles follow the arrangement and content of the Masoretic Text (mt). The Septuagint version (or lxx) was translated from a Hebrew text of the book that differed in many ways from the mt<\/a>. Because of this, the Greek version is roughly one-eighth shorter than the mt<\/a>, and after Jeremiah 25:13<\/a>, the order of the chapters differs dramatically.<\/p>\n

Despite attempts to solve the \u201cJeremiah problem,\u201d the textual history of both versions remains unresolved. We still don\u2019t know which Hebrew text is older\u2014the one we have today (mt<\/a>) or the one used by the scribes who created the Septuagint.<\/p>\n

The fragmentary scrolls of the book found among the Dead Sea Scrolls usually follow the order and content of mt<\/a>, but some of the material matches the Hebrew manuscript that was translated into the Septuagint. Consequently, the Dead Sea Scrolls cannot offer a definitive answer regarding which version of the book more closely aligns with the time of the prophet.<\/p>\n

We also find mixed results when examining the history of these versions. The Jewish community favored the mt<\/a> version, but this is only apparent from around ad 100 onward, after the time of Jesus and the apostles. New Testament writers favored the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament. Studies reveal that when the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament, the wording found in the Greek New Testament, the mt<\/a>, and the Septuagint differs in some way 80 percent of the time.<\/p>\n

Word-for-word quotations of mt<\/a> are not common, amounting to less than five percent. Even when factoring in nearly identical quotations of mt<\/a>, it is clear that the New Testament writers only appear to have used mt<\/a> 20 percent of the time. The New Testament writers most often quoted from the Septuagint,1<\/a> but this doesn\u2019t mean they endorsed<\/em> it, since they used both versions. They were writing in Greek, and so using a Greek translation would have been natural.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

A Practical Response<\/p>\n

So what can we conclude about the book of Jeremiah? Well, we cannot<\/em> conclude that the Septuagint is to be preferred over mt<\/a>, as though it were more sacred or \u201coriginal.\u201d If that w<\/span>ere the case, it would be shocking to see the New Testament writers quote the mt<\/a>. The reverse is true as well. Neither version deserves a higher status.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the real lesson is that the New Testame<\/span>nt writers, working through divine inspiration, weren\u2019t concerned about the issue. There isn\u2019t a single instance that indicates concern over which manuscript was being used or quoted.<\/p>\n

This lack of con<\/span>cern is reflected in the ministry of Paul, who preached in synagogues all over the Mediterranean. Each synagogue had its own biblical text\u2014its own scrolls, sometimes Septuagint and sometimes mt<\/a>\u2014and Pa<\/span>ul used whatever was at his disposal. The same is true in his own letters. He trusted God\u2019s provision that he was reading and preaching the very word of God. So should we.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Why the Ark of the Covenant Will Never Be Found<\/p>\n

I can still recall the thrill of seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark<\/em> in the theater. A senior in high school, I had already been infected with the archaeolog<\/span>y bug. This movie boosted my interest to a whole new level. As Providence would have it, I followed the path of Indiana Jones\u2014at least academically. I\u2019m still fascinated by the ark, but I no longer believe it is lost and awaiting discovery. I have Jeremiah to blame for that.<\/span><\/p>\n

The idea that the ark of the covenant survived Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s invasion of Judah is based on the absence of any explicit re<\/span>ference to the ark being among the vessels of gold carried to Babylon (2 Chr 36:5\u20138<\/a>). Likewise, the list of items brought back to Judah after the end of the exile makes no mention the ark (Ezra 1:5\u201311<\/a><\/span>). The simplest explanation is that the ark was among the \u201cvessels of gold in the temple of the Lord\u201d that Nebuchadnezzar cut to pieces (2 Kgs 24:13<\/a>). No one would pay to see that movie.<\/p>\n

From ancient <\/span>times until the present day, people have resisted the idea that God would allow Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Israel\u2019s holiest object. Testifying to the power of this resistance, there are nearly a dozen theories as t<\/span>o how the ark survived.<\/p>\n

Some of these theories are drawn from biblical events. Perhaps Hezekiah gave the ark to Sennacherib as part of his tribute payment (2 Kgs 18<\/a>). Might it have been r<\/span>emoved by faithful priests when Manasseh put an idol in the temple (2 Kgs 21:1\u20139<\/a>)? Indiana Jones told millions that Pharaoh Shishak took the ark to the city of Tanis in Egypt when he invaded Jerusalem<\/span> (1 Kgs 14:25\u201328<\/a>). Perhaps the most intricate theory involves Menelik I, the alleged son of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, taking the ark to Ethiopia. The Ethiopian royal chronicle, the Kebra Nagast<\/span>,<\/span> presents this idea so seriously that rulers of Ethiopia well into the 20th century had to prove their descent from Menelik I.<\/p>\n

Other theories grew out of specific passages in ancient texts. Second Mac<\/span>cabees 2:5<\/a> records Jeremiah hiding the ark in a cave before Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s invasion. Second Baruch 6:1\u20139<\/a> describes the ark being supernaturally swallowed up by the earth before the invasion, tucked <\/span>away until the time of Israel\u2019s restoration.<\/p>\n

Jeremiah 3:16\u201317<\/a> makes all these hypotheses difficult to believe:<\/p>\n

And when you have multiplied and been fruitful in the land, in those days, declares the L<\/span>ord, they shall no more say, \u201cThe ark of the covenant of the Lord.\u201d It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again. At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne <\/span>of the Lord, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem \u2026<\/p>\n

The passage plainly shows that the ark would be absent because of the exile. Jeremiah 3:16<\/a> also insists that<\/span> \u201cit shall not be made again\u201d\u2014wording that strongly suggests the ark would be destroyed in the impending disaster; if the ark weren\u2019t destined for destruction, talk of rebuilding it would make no sense at all. <\/span>Jeremiah 3:17<\/a> reinforces this point\u2014the ark was God\u2019s throne. He sat \u201cbetween the cherubim\u201d of the lid known as the \u201cmercy seat\u201d (Exod 25:18\u201322<\/a>; Num 7:89<\/a>). But the passage speaks of a day wh<\/span>en Jerusalem itself will be called God\u2019s throne. We read about this in Revelation 21:2\u20133<\/a>: \u201cI heard a loud voice from the throne saying, \u2018Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell wi<\/span>th them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.\u2019\u00a0\u201d A recovered ark of the covenant doesn\u2019t fit this picture\u2014it would be a disappointment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

He, Him, Me, Myself, and I<\/p>\n

How strange would it sound if a friend described what they did this morning like this? \u201cAfter she got out of bed, she took a shower and then made a quick breakfast for herse<\/span>lf\u2014just some coffee and a bagel. I was in such a hurry that I didn\u2019t even finish my bagel and just took the coffee with me!\u201d<\/p>\n

Be honest. You would probably wonder if your friend needed medication. Alth<\/span>ough your friend was describing what she did this morning, the first few details sounded like she was talking about someone else. If the information was about her and spoken by her, why not use \u201cI\u201d and \u201cmy\u201d\u2014what we call \u201cfirst person\u201d pronouns in grammar? Why would she refer<\/span> to herself in the third person? We just don\u2019t talk or write like that.<\/p>\n

Neither would the biblical writers\u2014but that is exactl<\/span>y what we read in many biblical passages.<\/p>\n

Consider 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<\/span> 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 pr<\/span>iest, 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, and a great cloud, with <\/span>brightness around it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming metal.<\/p>\n

The first two verses use the first person (\u201cI\u201d), which leads us to believe that Ezek<\/span>iel himself is writing. But then there is a switch to the third person in verse three, as though the writer was not the famous prophet (\u201cto Ezekiel\u201d; \u201chim\u201d). Then it\u2019s back to the first person (\u201cI\u201d) again in verse four. What\u2019s going on? Can\u2019t Ezekiel decide if he\u2019s writing or not?<\/span><\/p>\n

There\u2019s no multiple personality disorder here. The switch between grammatical persons is simply the tell-tale sign of <\/span>an editor. Someone other than Ezekiel inserted verse three to make it clear that the prophet wasn\u2019t crazy: The prophet saw God and was led by the Spirit to describe what follows in the book.<\/p>\n

Who had t<\/span>he authority to edit the Bible like this? The short answer is whomever God moved to do so under inspiration. The longer answer is that, in the case of the prophetic writings, someone accepted by the believing <\/span>community of Israel to be a member of the prophetic class or tradition served as editor of the preaching and teaching of the prophets.<\/p>\n

A picture of a prophetic class emerges during the time o<\/span>f Elijah and Elisha. The prophets lived together in an organized community. The group was known as \u201cthe sons of the prophets\u201d (2 Kgs 2:3<\/a>, 5<\/a>, 7<\/a>, 15<\/a>) and included married couples (2 Kgs 4:1<\/a>). Such commu<\/span>nities began at least as early as the time of Samuel (1 Sam 10<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The prophetic community in Elijah and Elisha\u2019s era was large. During the time of Elijah, there were at least 100 prophets hidden by Oba<\/span>diah from Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kgs 18:4<\/a>). And during Elisha\u2019s period, 50 \u201csons of the prophets,\u201d which isn\u2019t even the whole group, are mentioned (2 Kgs 2:7<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The \u201csons of the prophets\u201d served God under<\/span> the leadership of a main prophet, who did most of the public speaking. We have several specific examples of this: Baruch (Jer 36<\/a>), Gehazi (2 Kgs 5:20<\/a>), and Elisha (2 Kgs 2:5<\/a>). Any of the unnamed prop<\/span>hets within the community could have been tasked with gathering the written words of their teacher, the main prophet, and putting them into a scroll or book. Writing down, organizing, and editing the prophet\u2019s words could have<\/span> taken place entirely after the death of a leading prophet, under the guidance of the Spirit. This process is similar to the way the Gospels were produced. We don\u2019t know for sure how it worked, but we do know that more than one hand was responsible for what we have today. That these people served God in this way, without recognition, is a lesson to us all.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Bizarre Visions for the Worst of Times<\/p>\n

We are prone to make assumptions about God and His favor when life has us down due to sin, mistakes, or incomprehensible circumstances. Of all the Scripture pass<\/span>ages we might turn to during these times, the bizarre vision that opens the book of Ezekiel would not register high on our list. However, reading this passage with its original ancient context in mind reveals a powerful message for its original recipients and for every believer.<\/p>\n

The Babylonian Context<\/p>\n

Ezekiel had his vision in Babylon as one of the captive exiles (Ezek 1:1\u20133<\/a>). Comparing his vision to Babylonian iconography reveals that Ezekiel saw a divine \u201cthrone chariot\u201d of<\/span> the heavens\u2014widely described in the ancient biblical world. Just as human kings had chariots, so did deities. A deity would traverse the heavens in his chariot throne, inspecting his domain and exercising authority over it. In Ezekiel\u2019s vision, this throne sits atop the \u201cexpanse\u201d (<\/span>\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2<\/span>, raqia\u02be<\/span>,<\/em> 1:26<\/a>)\u2014the same word used in Genesis 1:6\u20138<\/a> for the heavens (see also Psa 29:10<\/a>) and to describe God\u2019s ab<\/span>ode (Psa 150:1<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Wheels supported the chariot throne, along with four unusual creatures (identified as cherubim in Ezek 10:4<\/a>). Each creature had four faces: human, lion, eagle, and ox (Ezek 1:10<\/a>).1<\/a> Ne<\/span>xt to each cherub were four gleaming wheels (Ezek 1:15\u201316<\/a>). These wheels were set on edge, since they are described as \u201ctall\u201d (Ezek 1:18<\/a>). They had wheels within them\u2014that is, each one had at least on<\/span>e concentric circle within it. The vision describes the outer edge, or \u201crim,\u201d of each wheel as having \u201ceyes\u201d (\u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df<\/span>, \u02bfayin<\/span>). The prophet Daniel, who was also in Babylon, described the very same blazin<\/span>g throne with wheels (Dan 7:9<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Vision in Context<\/p>\n

The four faces of the four animals or cherubim correspond to the iconography of the Babylonian zodiac. Each represents a seasonal constellation in Babylonian astrology, and each <\/span>face or constellation also represented one of the four directions (N, S, E, W) or quadrants of the sky. Babylonians knew that the heavens were connected to what happened on earth (times, seasons, crops, weather, etc.), and they believed their gods controlled those functions. Information about the stars was laid out on Mesopotamian astrolabes, clay tablets whose concentric cir<\/span>cles could well correspond to the \u201cwheels within wheels\u201d imagery.<\/span><\/p>\n

English translations of Ezekiel\u2019s vision often break down at the point where the prophet describes \u201ceyes\u201d (\u05e2\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df<\/span>, \u02bfayin<\/span>) on the rims of the wheels. \u02bfAyin<\/span> oc<\/span>curs a number of places in the vision, but it is not always translated. Taking the esv<\/a> as an example, \u02bfayin<\/span> occurs six times in chapter 1<\/a> (vv. 4<\/a>, 7<\/a>, 16<\/a>, 18<\/a>, 22<\/a>, 27<\/a>) but is left untranslated three time<\/span>s (vv. 4<\/a>, 7<\/a>, 27<\/a>). In the vision\u2019s description of the wheels, the word \u02bfayin<\/span> is translated once as \u201csparkling\u201d (Ezek 10:9<\/a>). Since ancient astronomical texts commonly describe shining stars as \u201ceyes,\u201d \u02bf<\/span><\/span>ayin<\/span> can refer to stars or their sparkling appearance. Many translators miss this possibility, failing to consider the astronomical context portrayed by the four faces.<\/p>\n

The Meaning of the Vision<\/p>\n

During their time of exile, the Jewish captives might have easily believed Yahweh had abandoned them forever. Likewise, the Babylonians could have simply assumed their gods h<\/span>ad defeated Yahweh and ruled the heavens and the earth unchallenged. But Ezekiel\u2019s imagery sends a message to the Jews in exile\u2014and to their Babylonian captors: Both assumptions are flawed. Yahweh has not been defeated, nor has He turned away from His people, Israel. He remains seated in His chariot throne at the center of His domain\u2014the entire cosmos.<\/span>2<\/a> When we read Ezekiel 1<\/a> through ancient eyes,<\/span> we can feel the same hope today: Even in the midst of difficult circumstances, we can know that an all-powerful God is active and present in our lives.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Do the Dead Sea Scrolls Answer the Canon Question?<\/p>\n

The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered between 1947\u20131956, transformed biblical studies. Found in a series of caves near an archaeological site on the north<\/span>western shore of the Dead Sea known as Qumran, they contributed to research on ancient scribal practices and the history of the Hebrew language. But beyond this research, the scrolls also directly affected an issue that has long been debated\u2014the Old Testament canon. Did this find solidify what shou<\/span>ld or should not be included in our Bibles?<\/p>\n

The word \u201ccanon\u201d refers to the collection of books consid<\/span>ered sacred and authoritative by a religious community\u2014in this case, Judaism and Christianity. Historical evidence reveals that within the Jewish community, there was still uncertainty about some books (e.g., Esther and the Song of Solomon) or portions of b<\/span>ooks (Ezekiel 40\u201348<\/a>) after ad 100. The question of whether Jewish leaders of earlier centuries had similar doubts\u2014or different ones\u2014was shroude<\/span>d in mystery before the discoveries at Qumran.<\/p>\n

Fragments of all the Old Testament books in the current Protestant evangelical canon have been found among the scrolls\u2014all except the book of Esther. How<\/span>ever, its omission by the Jewish community at Qumran does not indicate much about its canonical position today.<\/p>\n

The omission of the book tells us nothing about how the Qumran community actually felt a<\/span>bout Esther. The Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in modern times are only a fraction of the material originally stored at Qumran. The ravages of time have left us an incomplete picture, nullifying such a definitive conclusion.<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, the Jews at Qumran were one sect of Judaism among several. Even if there was evidence that they had rejected Esther, that position would have represented only a seg<\/span>ment of opinion. Even today, major segments of modern Christendom do not agree on the canon.1<\/a> That certain books meet approval or disapproval provides no guidance as to which opinion is correct.<\/p>\n

Beyon<\/span>d this, Qumran scribes often indicated a book\u2019s sacred status by citing the book as authoritative for some point of belief or practice in their community documents. They also indicated a book\u2019s sacred stat<\/span>us through produced commentaries. However, not every biblical book of today\u2019s Old Testament canon meets this criterion. For example, Judges, Jeremiah, and Job are never cited in community documents; they have not been the focus of a commentary. The incomplete nature of the discovery makes this no surprise. Conversely, the scribes at Qumran considered some books canonical that were not included later in<\/span> the Old Testament canon by either the Jewish or Christian communities. Examples include the books later known as <\/span>1 Enoch<\/em> and Jubilees<\/em>. Although the Dead Sea Scrolls provide fascinating insi<\/span>ghts into how one group of Jews thought about their canon, ultimately they offer no definitive conclusion to the broader modern discussion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

QUICKBIT:<\/strong> Originally, no fragments of Nehemiah were found am<\/span>ong the Qumran scrolls. Since Ezra and Nehemiah were originally combined in the ancient Jewish canon\u2014and fragments of Ezra were found at Qumran\u2014Esther was considered the only omission. But in the Spri<\/span>ng of 2012, scholars discovered the first Nehemiah fragment among the scrolls that were found in Qumran Cave 4.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

Part Two:<\/p>\n

New Testament<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Burying Hell<\/p>\n

\u201cBlessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah!\u2026 I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it\u201d (Matt 16:17\u201318<\/a>). The \u201cgates of hell\u201d? Why did Jesus respond to Peter\u2019s confession, \u201cYou are the Christ, the Son of the living God,\u201d in this way? (16:16<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Gates of Hell in Cosmic Geography<\/p>\n

When we read \u201chell,\u201d we naturally think of the realm of the unbelieving dead. But the Greek word translated \u201chell\u201d (\u1f85\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2<\/span>, had\u0113s<\/span>) is also the name for the Underworld\u2014Hades, the realm of all<\/em> the dead, not just unbelievers. The Hebrew equivalent to Hades is Sheol\u2014the place \u201cunder the earth\u201d where all went after this life ended.<\/p>\n

Sheol had \u201cbars\u201d (Job 17:16<\/a>) and \u201ccords\u201d to tie down its inhabitants (2 Sam 22:5\u20136<\/a>), preventing any escape (Job 7:9<\/a>). Both the righteous and the unrighteous went to Sheol. The righteous believer, however, could hope for deliverance and eternity with God (Psa 49:15<\/a>).<\/p>\n

While the imagery associated with the Underworld would have unnerved the disciples, Jesus\u2019 reference to the gates of Hades would have jolted them for another reason. If they knew their Old Testament well, they understood that they were standing before those very gates as Jesus spoke.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

The Gates of Hell in Terrestrial Geography<\/p>\n

Matthew 16<\/a> takes place in Caesarea Philippi, situated near a mountainous region containing Mount Hermon. In the Old Testament, this region was known as Bashan\u2014a place with a sinister reputation.<\/p>\n

According to the Old Testament, Bashan was controlled by two kings\u2014Sihon and Og\u2014who were associated with the ancient giant clans: the Rephaim and the Anakim (Deut 2:10\u201312<\/a>; Josh 12:1\u20135<\/a>). The two main cities of their kingdom were Ashtaroth and Edrei, home to the Rephaim (Deut 3:1<\/a>, 10\u201311<\/a>; Josh 12:4\u20135<\/a>).<\/p>\n

These cities and their Rephaim inhabitants are mentioned by name in Canaanite (Ugaritic) cuneiform tablets. The people of Ugarit believed the Rephaim were the spirits of dead warrior-kings. They also believed that the cities of Ashtaroth and Edrei were the entryway to the Underworld\u2014the gates of Sheol. Also, during Israel\u2019s divided kingdom period, Jereboam built a pagan religious center at Dan\u2014just south of Mount Hermon\u2014where the Israelites worshiped Baal instead of Yahweh.<\/p>\n

For the disciples, Bashan was an evil, otherworldly domain. But they had two other reasons to feel queasy about where they were standing. According to Jewish tradition, Mount Hermon was the location where the divine sons of God had descended from heaven\u2014ultimately corrupting humankind via their offspring with human women (see Gen 6:1\u20134<\/a>). These offspring were known as Nephilim, ancestors of the Anakim and the Rephaim (Num 13:30\u201333<\/a>). In Jewish theology, the spirits of these giants were demons (1 Enoch<\/em><\/a> 15:1\u201312<\/a>).<\/p>\n

To make the region even spookier, Caesarea Philippi had been built and dedicated to Zeus. This pagan god was worshiped at a religious center built a short distance from the more ancient one in Dan\u2014at the foot of Mount Hermon. Aside from the brief interlude during the time of Joshua through Solomon, the gates of hell were continually open for business.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Jesus Declares War<\/p>\n

The rock which Jesus referred to in this passage was neither Peter nor Himself; it was the rock on which they were standing\u2014the foot of Mount Hermon, the demonic headquarters of the<\/span> Old Testament and the Greek world.<\/p>\n

We often presume that the phrase \u201cthe gates of hell shall not prevail against it\u201d describes a Church taking on the onslaught of evil. But the word \u201cagainst\u201d is not <\/span>present in the Greek. Translating the phrase without it gives it a completely different connotation: \u201cthe gates of hell will not withstand it<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is the Church that Jesus sees as the aggressor. He wa<\/span>s declaring war on evil and death. Jesus would build His Church atop the gates of hell\u2014He would bury them.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

My Guardian Angel<\/p>\n

\u201cEvery time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings.\u201d<\/p>\n

These are familiar words for those of us who make a holiday tradition of watching the classic film It\u2019s a Wonderful Life<\/em>. The angel Clarence helps George Bailey discover the unseen but tremendous significance his mundane life played in the lives of others. It\u2019s a heartwarming story, full of hope and encouragement. But what about its theology? Are guardian angels\u2014like Clarence\u2014really biblical?<\/p>\n

Jesus\u2019 words in Matthew 18:10<\/a> suggest the answer is yes: \u201cSee that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.\u201d The passage affirms that children have angels who represent them before God. Where did Matthew get such an idea?<\/p>\n

In Job 5:1<\/a>, angels are presented as mediators between God and people. Job\u2019s friend Eliphaz challenges him: \u201cCall now; is there anyone who will answer you? To which of the holy ones will you turn?\u201d Eliphaz presumes that angels would act as mediators between God and Job.<\/p>\n

This understanding was common in the biblical world. Ancient Mesopotamians, for example, believed that humans had \u201cpersonal gods\u201d who could appeal for them before the assembly of gods.<\/p>\n

We no longer need a mediator. Through His death and resurrection, Jesus now intercedes on our behalf before God (1 Tim 2:5<\/a>). But the New Testament still describes angels as having an immediate ministry to believers, as demonstrated by Hebrews 1:14<\/a>: \u201cAre they [angels] not all ministering spirits, sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?\u201d<\/p>\n

Also, the narrative in Acts 12<\/a> shows us a continued connection between angels and people. After an angel frees Peter from prison and execution, Peter goes to the house of his fellow believers (12:6\u201310<\/a>). Those inside don\u2019t believe the servant girl\u2019s report that he is at the door. They reply, \u201cIt is his angel!\u201d (12:15<\/a>). This statement testifies to the early Christian belief that humans had angels who acted as a kind of celestial double\u2014attached to a person for their welfare.<\/p>\n

The concept of angelic guardianship and activity in our lives is something we have often left to the imagination. Apparently, Hollywood gets some biblical things right. God\u2019s agents are commissioned to act on our behalf, at His direction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

The New Testament Misquotes the Old Testament?<\/p>\n

Sometimes when a New Testament writer quotes the Old Testament, the two passages do not match precisely. Is the New Testament writer misquoting the Old T<\/span>estament? Or is there another explanation?<\/p>\n

Luke records that when Jesus began His ministry, He went to the synagogue in Nazareth on the Sabbath day. When He stood up to read the Scriptures, \u201cThe scrol<\/span>l of the prophet Isaiah was given to him\u201d (Luke 4:17<\/a>). Jesus read the description of a climactic arrival of the anointed one from Isaiah 61:1\u20132<\/a>, excluding the last half of verse two. That omission is <\/span>understandable, but if you look at Luke 4:18\u201319<\/a> and Isaiah 61:1\u20132<\/a> side by side, several dissimilarities in what Jesus read are readily apparent.<\/p>\n

In the original Old Testament passage, there is no refe<\/span>rence to making the blind see. Conversely, Isaiah speaks of \u201cbinding up the brokenhearted,\u201d a phrase absent in Luke. Since Luke is clear that Jesus was reading from a scroll, the divergence is not due to Luke (or Jesus) quoting from memory and messing up <\/span>the passage! What\u2019s going on here?<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Luke 4:18\u201319<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Isaiah 61:1\u20132<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news<\/span> to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind,<\/strong> to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord\u2019s favor.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

The Spirit o<\/span>f the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,<\/strong> to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the pri<\/span>son to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord\u2019s favor.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Most of the time when a divergence occurs between a New Testament quotation and the Old Testament, the answer is the Septuagint, <\/span>the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. It often does not match the Hebrew text from which most Old Testaments were translated. Jesus apparently either read from a Hebrew text that reflected the Septuagint, or Luke fills in the quoted passage with the Septuagint. (And since Luke was not Jewish and spoke Greek, the Se<\/span>ptuagint would have been his Bible.)<\/p>\n

The Septuagint version of Isaiah 6<\/span>1:1\u20132<\/a> reads, \u201cThe spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim the release of the captives, and reco<\/span>very of sight to the blind, to summon the acceptable year of the Lord\u201d (nets). Jesus (or Luke) gets the \u201crecovery of sight to the blind\u201d line from the Septuagint. The Septuagint also contains a line f<\/span>rom the traditional Old Testament that isn\u2019t in Luke\u2019s record!<\/p>\n

This example shows that it\u2019s worth our time to check cross references, especially in quotations. Do it yourself by comparing New Testamen<\/span>t quotations both<\/em> to translations of the traditional Hebrew text, like the nasb or esv<\/a>, and<\/em> an up-to-date English translation of the Septuagint.1<\/a><\/p>\n

We often don\u2019t realize that even biblical writers depe<\/span>nded on translations that they considered the Word of God. In the same manner, we can consider our own translations the Word of God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

\u201cI Saw Satan Fall like Lightning\u201d: When?<\/p>\n

In one of the more enigmatic verses in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells His disciples, \u201cI saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven\u201d (Luke 10:18<\/a>). The question isn\u2019t about the what<\/em> of Jesus\u2019 statement. It\u2019s clear that Satan is under judgment. Rather, the confusion is over the when<\/em> of the statement. It might sound like a reference to when Satan became<\/em> Satan, before the garden of Eden\u2014abandoning his status among God\u2019s heavenly host\u2014but that conclusion would be too hasty.<\/p>\n

We basically have three options when it comes to figuring out the timing of Satan\u2019s fall: before, during, or after Jesus\u2019 own time. Many people have offered opinions. Perhaps the most common interpretation is that Jesus is seeing or remembering the original fall of Satan. This option makes little sense in context. Prior to the statement, Jesus had sent out the disciples to heal and preach that the kingdom of God had drawn near to them (Luke 10:1\u20139<\/a>). They return amazed and excited by the fact that demons were subject to them in the name of Jesus (10:17<\/a>). Jesus then says, \u201cI saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is a connection between the kingdom, the defeat of demons, and Satan. But if Satan\u2019s fall in Luke 10:18<\/a> speaks of an event in the remote past, why wasn\u2019t the kingdom established then? Why was Satan still powerful when Jesus showed up on the scene? Even with the kingdom of Israel under David and the presence of God in the temple, the power and influence of Satan is evident on nearly every page of Old Testament history.<\/p>\n

The view that Jesus was referring to Satan\u2019s fall during his own ministry is better, but it is not without problem. We don\u2019t read anywhere in the Bible of anyone casting out demons prior to Jesus\u2019 ministry. That display of power\u2014as well as the announcements of the kingdom and the ruling authority of God on earth\u2014is unmistakable. This is consistent with what Luke writes in the next chapter (11:14\u201323<\/a>), where he identifies Jesus with the \u201cstrong man\u201d who binds Satan. With Jesus having bound the strong man (Satan), He and His disciples can plunder Satan\u2019s realm. This seems to tie in with what Jesus says after His statement about Satan (Luke 10:19\u201320<\/a>), where He grants the disciples power over the forces of evil. But these verses also produce difficulties. Why do we read later in the same gospel and other parts of the New Testament that the disciples weren\u2019t immune from Satan\u2019s power (Luke 22:31\u201361<\/a>; 2 Cor 12:7<\/a>; 1 Thess 2:18<\/a>)?<\/p>\n

This brings us to the third option: Jesus\u2019 statement refers to a time subsequent to His own. Since Satan was (and is) still alive and well\u2014with respect to his ongoing opposition to the Church everywhere\u2014it makes sense to see Satan\u2019s fall \u201clike lightning from heaven\u201d as a future event. The wording used by Luke (\u201cI saw\u201d) was quite common in the Old Testament for introducing prophetic visions, especially in the book of Daniel (Dan 4:10<\/a>; 7:2<\/a>, 4<\/a>, 6\u20137<\/a>, 9<\/a>, 11<\/a>, 13<\/a>, 21<\/a>).1<\/a><\/p>\n

My own view is a combination of the second and third view. It seems quite clear that the rule of God began at the ministry of Jesus, but it is a rule in progress that will reach a final culmination at a future time. As the Old Testament repeatedly reminds us, and as Jesus affirmed in Luke 10:18<\/a>, on that day<\/em> the defeat of our cosmic enemy will be swift and final.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

The Healing Serpent<\/p>\n

Many people can recite John 3:16<\/a>, but how many know what John 3:14\u201315<\/a> says? Jesus\u2019 words in these two verses have generated confusion and controversy: \u201cAnd as Moses lifted up the s<\/span>erpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.\u201d<\/p>\n

John 3:15<\/a> presents no problem; it declares the gospel\u2014that Jesus, the Son of Man in <\/span>this passage, is the true object of faith for all who would have eternal life. The difficulty lies in verse 14<\/a>, where Jesus compares His destiny on the cross to a serpent \u201clifted up\u201d in the wilderness<\/span>.<\/p>\n

In this analogy, Jesus draws on Numbers 21:4\u20139<\/a>, one of many incidents in which the Israelites complained about their circumstances on their journey to the promised land. God punished their impatienc<\/span>e and lack of faith by sending venomous \u201cfiery serpents\u201d into the camp (Num 21:6<\/a>). After many fatalities, the people begged Moses to intercede with God on their behalf. God relented and instructed Mos<\/span>es to make a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. Anyone bitten by a serpent would be healed by gazing at the bronze serpent.<\/p>\n

Although the parallel between the serpent on the pole and Jesus on the cro<\/span>ss is apparent, the incident raises questions. Why didn\u2019t God heal the people directly? Was the bronze serpent an idol, and thus a violation of the second commandment? Wouldn\u2019t the Israelites have rec<\/span>oiled at the association of healing with a serpent?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

Not Out of Eden<\/p>\n

We might incorrectly link the serpent on the pole (Num 21<\/a>) and the serpent in the garden (Gen 3<\/a>), but the only similarity between these two passages is the word \u201cserpent\u201d (\u05e0\u05d7\u05e9<\/span>, nachash<\/span>). The nachash<\/span> of Genesis 3<\/a> is a figure acting independently of\u2014and in opposition to\u2014the will of God. In Numbers 21<\/a> the biting serpents are God\u2019s instrument of judgment for sin, and the nachash<\/span> on the pole is God\u2019s instrument of healing for those punished for sin.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Maybe Magic<\/p>\n

In part the answer to \u201cwhy a serpent?\u201d is found in the ancient practice of sympathetic magic\u2014the idea that a person afflicted by an object can be cured or delivered by an image of that same object. In the absence of sophisticated medical knowledge, ancient cultures sought cures for physical ailments or perceived curses by such means. We can find several examples of this ancient medical approach in other places in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n

For example, the Philistines fashioned five golden objects that corresponded to an affliction Yahweh sent upon their cities (1 Sam 6:5\u201318<\/a>). Both Moses and Elisha purified drinking water by using elements that would otherwise taint it (Exod 15:25<\/a>; 2 Kgs 2:21<\/a>). Elisha received no instruction from God to proceed as he did, and so he apparently believed God would empower the gesture. In Numbers 21<\/a> God makes use of this familiar cultural idea to communicate an offer of divine deliverance to the Israelites.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Also Symbolism<\/p>\n

God\u2019s use of serpent symbolism for healing was appropriate for other reasons. Israelites, like other Semitic peoples, associated serpents with life and healing. Snakes were thought to have regenerative healing powers because they shed their skin. Serpent images were a common motif in ancient Near Eastern art. Storage jars often included serpent imagery\u2014perhaps to ward off theft or spoilage. The Greek god of healing, Asclepius, was depicted as a snake. The rod of Asclepius, a staff entwined by a snake, is still a symbol for medicine and healing today. Here, Yahweh uses this imagery to proclaim His sovereignty over other gods.<\/p>\n

Aside from their association with healing, serpents were familiar symbols of protection. Consider ancient Egypt, where the snake is an ever-present symbol. The uraeus serpent on the crown of the pharaoh was thought to render him immune from harm and enable him to heal. Other serpent icons served as divine guardians. The confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh, in which the serpent of God devoured the Egyptians\u2019 serpents, sent a powerful theological message about the superiority of Yahweh (Exod 7:8\u201313<\/a>). Yahweh\u2014not Pharaoh\u2014had power over the natural and divine worlds and the authority to dispense or withhold judgment or mercy. He was truly God; Pharaoh was an amateur magician.<\/p>\n

Some of these messages are conveyed in both Numbers 21<\/a> and John 3:14\u201315<\/a>. First, Yahweh was not a God with which to trifle. He could punish faithlessness by commanding the forces of nature\u2014sending venomous serpents against the Israelites. But He also had the power to reverse the effects, offering His divine healing through a bronze serpent. Healing came with one condition: The Israelites had to exercise faith in the offer.<\/p>\n

Jesus\u2019 use of this test of the \u201cobedience of faith\u201d creates a fitting analogy to His own destiny. Death, the natural world\u2019s most consuming force, would be reversed for all who looked to Jesus, raised up on the pole of the cross\u2014if only the afflicted would believe.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Who Took Verse 4<\/a> out of My Bible?<\/p>\n

Most of us have read John 5:1\u20139<\/a>, the story of the blind, paralyzed man at the pool of Bethesda, many times, but I\u2019ll bet there\u2019s something that escaped your attention<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. 2\u00a0Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five cover<\/span>ed colonnades. 3\u00a0Here a great number of disabled people used to lie\u2014the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. 5\u00a0One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6\u00a0When Jesus saw him lying there<\/span> and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, \u201cDo you want to get well?\u201d 7\u00a0\u201cSir,\u201d the invalid replied, \u201cI have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirre<\/span>d. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.\u201d 8\u00a0Then Jesus said to him, \u201cGet up! Pick up your mat and walk.\u201d 9\u00a0At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked (John 5<\/span>:1\u20139<\/a> niv).<\/p>\n

If you read closely you\u2019ll notice that verse 4<\/a> is missing! Start at verse one and count out loud: 1, 2, 3 \u2026 5?<\/p>\n

In case your Bible version doesn\u2019t have the verse, the omitted words read: \u201cfo<\/span>r an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted\u201d (<\/span>nasb).<\/p>\n

The verse is not just missing in the niv; the situation is the same in the esv<\/a>, nrsv, cev, nlt, and the net Bible. If you use the nasb or ncv you will see the verse, bu<\/span>t it\u2019s been placed inside brackets, whereas the kjv and the nkjv contain verse 4<\/a> without any notation or demarcation. So what\u2019s going on here? Who took John 5:4<\/a> out of the Bible?<\/p>\n

If you\u2019re using a stu<\/span>dy Bible that doesn\u2019t have verse 4<\/a>, you will likely see a note at the end of verse 3<\/a>, or the beginning of verse 5<\/a>, explaining why it isn\u2019t there. This is a textbook case of a disagreement between manu<\/span>scripts of the Greek New Testament. What would be John 5:4<\/a> (the missing material that begins in verse 3<\/a>) is not found in any of the earliest and most accurate manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Schola<\/span>rs who make a career of comparing manuscripts (\u201ctextual critics\u201d and \u201cpaleographers\u201d) have discovered that in roughly two dozen manuscripts scribes put asterisk marks at the verse to warn the next scribe who would copy the manuscript that the verse was likely not original. To top it all off, four<\/span> of the last five Greek words of what would be John 5:4<\/a> aren\u2019t found anywhere else in John\u2019s writings. <\/span>This suggests that John 5:4<\/a> does not belong in the New Testament, which explains why many modern Bible translations have omitted it.<\/p>\n

After 1900, translators used new manuscript discoveries from the 18<\/span>00s, which revealed that the verse was likely not original. This is why verse 4<\/a> is listed in the pre-1900 kjv \u201cas is\u201d without brackets (the nkjv followed the kjv in this regard). More recent Bible tra<\/span>nslations (omitting or retaining the verse with brackets) give us a clearer picture of what the original product of inspiration looked like.<\/p>\n

Why would verse four have not been included in the original<\/span> New Testament? It is not because of the angel in the story. The Bible has no problem with angels; they\u2019re all over the place, doing all sorts of things.1<\/a> But, like today, there was a great deal of fo<\/span>lklore and superstition about them. The idea that an angel stirred the waters at a given time during the year was one such superstition. John 5:7<\/a> mentions the stirring of the water but does not mentio<\/span>n the angel. It\u2019s likely that John knew of the belief about the waters of Bethesda but chose to leave it out for a specific reason. Perhaps he does not wish to endorse that an angel was stirring the water. By excluding the popular belief about the angel, <\/span>John focuses his readers on the healer who was indeed present\u2014Jesus.<\/p>\n

There are some lessons for us all in \u201cthe case of the missing verse.\u201d First,<\/span> we need to train ourselves to read the Bible closely. If we missed something like the normal order of numbering in John 5<\/a>, what else are we overlooking? Second, it pays to compare Bible versions. Eve<\/span>n scholars who read Greek and Hebrew actively compare manuscript traditions. The work of another scribe (or Bible translator) can often direct our attention to something important. Third, we need to be sure the content of our preaching and teaching has a secure footing in the t<\/span>ext. God moved people to spend their lives transmitting the biblical text; the least we can do is pay close attention.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

What Walking on Water Really Means<\/p>\n

Tales of tempests battering ships inspire respect for the sea. En route to Capernaum, Jesus\u2019 disciples watched these stories become reality as the roaring wind trans<\/span>formed the waters around them. As they fought against the waves and wind, they witnessed a miracle: \u201cThey saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat\u201d (John 6:19<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Appearing in three of the <\/span>four Gospels, this event inspires Sunday school lessons and has become ingrained in our portrait of Jesus\u2019 life. As spectacular and unforgettable as the event is to us, however, a Jewish audience would have seen in it a profou<\/span>nd theological meaning against the backdrop of the Old Testament.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

An Old Testament Symbol<\/p>\n

In the Old Testament the unpredictable sea is a common symbol of cosmic disorder\u2014conditions contrary to God\u2019s design for an ordered world. This symbol for cosmic anarchy is also personified as a sea monster, known as Leviathan or Rahab. The image of chaos as an untamed monster in a churning, erratic sea was common throughout the ancient world. People accustomed to land would naturally view the vast, raging ocean as uncontrollable and potentially deadly, filled with terrifying unknown creatures.<\/p>\n

Religions across the ancient Mediterranean often depicted their important deities destroying or subduing the sea dragon, thereby calming the sea and restoring order. In the Old Testament it is Yahweh, the God of Israel, who conquers the forces of chaos and imposes order in the cosmos (Job 26:12\u201313<\/a>; Psa 89:5\u201314<\/a>). This imagery is applied even to the exodus from Egypt (Psa 74:12\u201317<\/a>), where God split the sea to deliver His people, thereby conquering the forces of evil that sought their demise.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Final Victory<\/p>\n

God\u2019s ultimate victory at the end of the age is also depicted as God dominating the forces of the sea: \u201cIn that day the Lord with his hard and great and strong sword will punish Leviatha<\/span>n the twisting serpent, Leviathan the crooked serpent, and he will slay the dragon that is in the sea\u201d (Isa 27:1<\/a>). This is why the description of the final paradise of the new heaven and new earth con<\/span>tains the phrase, \u201cthe sea was no more\u201d (Rev 20:3<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The prophet Daniel\u2019s vision of the end of days and the kingdom of God includes four beasts that emerge out of a storm-tossed sea (Dan 7:1\u20138<\/a>). These <\/span>beasts are not aquatic creatures by nature. They come from the sea because they represent chaos. God\u2019s heavenly court sentences the beasts to death (Dan 7:9\u201312<\/a>), after which the \u201cson of man\u201d arrives i<\/span>mmediately to receive the kingdom of God (Dan 7:13\u201314<\/a>). All of this imagery informs John\u2019s account of Jesus walking on the sea during the storm.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

Jesus Christ, Lord over the Sea<\/p>\n

John identifies Jesus as the Son of Man to whom the Father has given the authority to execute judgment (John 5:27<\/a>; compare Matt 26:57\u201368<\/a>). John also asserts repeatedly that Jesus is God incarnate. In John\u2019s Gospel, Jesus invokes the divine name (\u201cI AM\u201d) seven times in reference to Himself (e.g., John 6:35<\/a>; 15:1<\/a>). He declares oneness with the Father (John 10:30<\/a>), and He proclaims that the Father is in Him and He is in the Father (John 10:37\u201338<\/a>).<\/p>\n

For John, a Jew familiar with the Old Testament, the image of Jesus walking on the sea was a dramatic portrayal that Jesus is Yahweh\u2014the one who subdues the forces of chaos and imposes His will on the waters and everything the waters represent. The kingdom of the Son of Man had begun, and all forces opposing God\u2019s ordained order would now be defeated. Like Jesus\u2019 disciples, we can find comfort in knowing that the one who treads upon the volatile sea can subdue whatever chaos threatens to overwhelm us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

QUICKBIT:<\/strong> The three accounts of Jesus walking on water are found in John 6:16\u201321<\/a>, Matthew 14:22\u201333<\/a> and Mark 6:45\u201352<\/a>\u2014the Gospels authored by Jewish writers. Luke doesn\u2019t include this detail, likely because he was a Gentile writing to a Gentile friend, Theophilus (Luke 1:1\u20134<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Born Again \u2026 and Again and Again?<\/p>\n

Was Jesus open to the idea of reincarnation? The question may seem odd, but it\u2019s one that many people, even biblical scholars, contend has a positive answer.1<\/a> The idea comes from a passage you\u2019ve likely read dozens of times.<\/p>\n

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, \u201cRabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?\u201d Jesus answered, \u201cNeither this man nor his parents sinned, but in order that the works of God might be made manifest in him (he was born blind). We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work\u201d (John 9:1\u20134<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Notice the disciples\u2019 question: \u201cRabbi, who sinned, this man<\/em> or his parents, that he was born blind?\u201d Many presume the question indicates that the disciples believed the man born blind really could have sinned before<\/em> he was born, and that his pre-birth sins caused his congenital blindness. This presumption is followed by another: that Jesus\u2019 answer wasn\u2019t a categorical denial. Since Jesus doesn\u2019t come out and say, \u201cWhat a silly idea, don\u2019t be ridiculous!\u201d Some have argued that His response means that in this case<\/em> the man born blind didn\u2019t sin in a previous life, but perhaps that could have happened in another case. Could this interpretation be correct?<\/p>\n

Reincarnation is the belief that the soul migrates from one body to another, different body, in a long (possibly endless) succession. The idea of the \u201cmigration of the soul\u201d cannot<\/em> be found in the Bible, or in other Jewish writers of antiquity,2<\/a> which indicates the disciples were likely presuming something different: People can do good and evil while still in the womb. Paul addresses this misconception in Romans 9:9\u201313<\/a> when dealing with the case of Jacob and Esau. Even if<\/em>a pre-born person could sin in the womb, this does not<\/em> involve the migration of a soul.<\/p>\n

For this is what the promise said: \u201cAbout this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.\u201d And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad\u2014in order that God\u2019s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls\u2014she was told, \u201cThe older will serve the younger.\u201d As it is written, \u201cJacob I loved, but Esau I hated\u201d (Rom 9:9\u201313<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Matthew 16:13<\/a>, where some people suggest that Jesus was John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the Old Testament prophets, is also no help to those who want to see reincarnation in John 9:3\u20134<\/a>. Jesus and John were contemporaries, born six months apart (Luke 1:8\u201336<\/a>); thus, John\u2019s soul could not have migrated into Jesus\u2019 body. Elijah never died (2 Kgs 2:1\u201317<\/a>), and so the migration of his soul is also not possible. If Jesus were one of the prophets, who had come back to life, then the prophet would be resurrected, not the prophet\u2019s soul in another body. There are other, more technical flaws in this interpretation of John 9<\/a>, but from this examination alone, it should be apparent that the idea of Jesus approving of one being born again<\/em> into another<\/em> physical body is dead \u2026 again<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Dumbledore Meets Philip & Peter<\/p>\n

The book of Acts is a favorite of preachers, so you are likely familiar with the showdown in Acts 8:9\u201324<\/a> between Peter and Simon the Magician.1<\/a> Luke tells us that Simon<\/span> had practiced his magic in a city in Samaria where he had been hailed as \u201cGod\u2019s Great Power.\u201d Simon heard the gospel preached by Philip and believed, but later, after Peter\u2019s arrival, he tried to purchase the power of the Ho<\/span>ly Spirit from Peter. His name consequently has not been remembered for any great deeds, but for the payment of money for church office (\u201csimony\u201d). But is that all there is to the story? Hardly. Don\u2019t look away now or you\u2019ll miss what\u2019s behind the magic.<\/span><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s look at how a first-century audience would have comprehended the episode in its Samaritan setting. That Simon was <\/span>referred to by the people of the Samaritan city as \u201cGod\u2019s Great Power\u201d is significant. That title comes from the Samaritan Targum\u2014an Aramaic translation of the Samaritan Hebrew Bible, known as the Sam<\/span>aritan Pentateuch.2<\/a> In the Samaritan Targum, the Hebrew word \u02beel<\/span> (\u05d0\u05dc<\/span>, \u201cGod\u201d) is translated hela<\/span> (\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05d0<\/span>, \u201cpower\u201d). God is then called \u201cgreat\u201d (\u05e8\u05d1<\/span>, rab<\/span>). Not surprisingly, \u201cthe Great Power\u201d was used in S<\/span>amaritan hymns and writings as a substitute for the divine name, much in the same way orthodox Jews say ha-shem<\/span> (\u05d4\u05e9\u05dd<\/span>, \u201cthe Name\u201d) instead of pronouncing the divine name Yahweh.<\/p>\n

But how could the Samar<\/span>itans speak of Simon as though he were God? Well, Simon was able to do amazing things. We aren\u2019t told if what he was doing was something he picked up learning magical trickery or enablement from a demonic power, but the eff<\/span>ect was the same. Second, the plural of \u201cpower\u201d (helin<\/span>) was also used by Samaritans of angels. Like many Jews and Christians, Samaritans considered one particular angel\u2014the one <\/span>in whom Yahweh\u2019s name dwelled (Exod 23:20\u201323<\/a>)\u2014as the embodied Yahweh. Since this angel was viewed as a physical manifestation of the true God\u2014the \u201cGreat Power\u201d\u2014Simon\u2019s acts of magical power had convin<\/span>ced many Samaritans that he, too, was a fleshly manifestation of God.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s easy to see how Luke, writing in full knowledge of the incarnation of God in Christ, would have sought to use this encounter.<\/span> The drama is palpable. Philip had taken the message that God had become man in Jesus Christ to Samaria, where they already had their own incarnate deity, Simon the Magician, \u201cGod\u2019s Great Power.\u201d Incredibly, Luke records that the power of the gospel broke through to Simon, moving him to embrace <\/span>the message of Philip. And when he saw the signs and miracles Philip performed, \u201cGreat Power\u201d was draine<\/span>d. So much for all that Hogwarts tuition!<\/p>\n

From Luke\u2019s account, Simon must have realized very quickly that his own repertoire of tricks, however stunning they were to the masses, fell far short of what<\/span> he had seen from Philip. Simon\u2019s conversion reads quite genuine. Luke is careful to note, though, that Simon saw the powerful deeds of Philip only after he believed, when he began accompanying Philip in the city (<\/span>Acts 8:13<\/a>). But he hadn\u2019t seen anything yet.<\/p>\n

Luke tells us that when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that the gospel had reached the Samaritans\u2014a people hated by \u201cpure\u201d Jews for centurie<\/span>s (John 4:9<\/a>)\u2014they sent Peter and John not<\/em> to investigate whether it was true, but to pray<\/em> for the Samaritan believers that they might receive the same Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14\u201317<\/a>) that had abided with t<\/span>hem since the explosion of the gospel at Pentecost (Acts 2<\/a>). This alone is a powerful message. Two Jewish men who had grown up with their own prejudices about the Samaritans didn\u2019t doubt that the grac<\/span>e of God included people they had scorned. Nothing Jesus had promised was to be withheld from them.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, Simon had a lot to learn about the real Great Power. When Simon saw that the Samarita<\/span>ns upon whom Peter and John laid their hands had received the Holy Spirit (no doubt evidenced in some tangible, powerful way), he wanted to experience that power himself. That\u2019s understandable. But where he went wrong was trying to pay for it (<\/span>Acts 8:18\u201319<\/a>). Peter rebuked him harshly, and Simon repented immediately (Acts 8:20\u201324<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, Simon\u2019s name lives on in infamy. Because of his on-th<\/span>e-spot repentance, not to mention the fact that he\u2019d probably only been a believer for at most a couple of weeks, it seems unreasonable to vilify Simon. In Simon, we have a man who was one day hailed as the incarnate God, but the next repented at the words of a coupl<\/span>e of fishermen. We should remember the broken heart more than the misguided gesture.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

Paul\u2019s Lost Letters<\/p>\n

Unless you\u2019ve been on an extended vacation from popular culture over the last couple of years, you know there\u2019s been a lot of recent discussion about how we got the New Testament. Dan Brown\u2019s blockbuster novel The Da Vinci Code<\/em> based its conspiratorial plot in part on the notion that other gospels had been eradicated by spiteful church authorities and an emperor openly partial to orthodoxy. The success of the novel prompted many churchgoers to ask whether or not all the books that should be included in the New Testament actually were.<\/p>\n

To be sure, Dan Brown took a lot of liberties with facts in his story. But what if we\u2019re not dealing with fiction? The New Testament itself tells us that there were books written by apostles that didn\u2019t make it into in the Bible. Surprised? Let\u2019s take a look.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

1 Corinthians 5:9<\/a><\/p>\n

In 1 Corinthians, Paul himself mentions an earlier letter he wrote to this same church: \u201cI wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people\u201d (1 Cor 5:9<\/a>). While some interpreters have argued that Paul was referring to the letter he was currently writing (1 Corinthians), most acknowledge that this explanation is weak. Taken at face value, 1 Corinthians 5:9<\/a> tells us that Paul had written to this church before\u2014but that letter has not survived and thus is not part of the New Testament.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Colossians 4:16<\/a><\/p>\n

In Paul\u2019s letter to the church at Collosae, he says, \u201cAnd when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea\u201d (Col 4:16<\/a>). What was this letter from Laodicea? What happened to it?<\/p>\n

The phrase \u201cletter from Laodicea\u201d is a literal translation of the Greek and suggests that the letter came from<\/em>Laodicea. This is a bit misleading though. The phrase does not necessarily mean that this letter was written by someone in Laodicea to Paul or to the Colossians. Colossians 4:16<\/a> tells us that letters to churches were circulated, and so it may be that this Laodicean letter was written by Paul and sent to the Christians at Colossae\u2014like the Colossian letter was to be sent to the believers in Laodicea.<\/p>\n

Some scholars have speculated that this letter isn\u2019t actually missing. The region of Laodicea was also identified with the city of Ephesus, indicating that the letter from Laodicea may actually be the epistle to the Ephesians. Others disagree, stating that a good case can be made based on the book of Acts\u2019 chronology for the letter to the Colossians being written before<\/em> the letter to the Ephesians. If this is the case, then the letter to Laodicea must not be the letter to the Ephesians contained in New Testament, because Colossians 4:16<\/a> directly references a letter that is supposed to already exist. If indeed the letter from Laodicea is not Ephesians, then we have another one of Paul\u2019s letters that never made it into the New Testament.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Cause for Concern?<\/p>\n

Are missing apostolic letters something that should cause us concern? Are we somehow driven to the conclusion that the process of collecting the inspired books of the New Testament <\/span>was flawed? Some believers might be troubled at the thought, but the problem is not<\/em> that the circumstances of history worked against God! The problem is a flawed view of inspiration that sees the act <\/span>of writing Scripture as some sort of \u201csingle moment\u201d divine encounter. If we think that inspiration is merely a string of momentary supernatural writing sessions, then it would be expected that anything \u201cspiritual\u201d written by an apostle or his close associate had to be preserved. If something went missing, then it l<\/span>ooks like something went wrong, or that God\u2019s intentions were thwarted by human ineptitude.<\/span><\/p>\n

Rather than seeing inspiration as a string of mystical encounters, we ought to understand that the apostles were normal people whose work for the Lord was in concert with the general providen<\/span>ce of God. We know by comparing the New Testament to other literature of its day that the apostles used vocabulary, styles, and forms of expression that were quite commonplace.<\/p>\n

The Scripture writers w<\/span>ere not under some sort of holy spell that meant everything they thought, spoke, or wrote had to be safeguarded. Rather, God influenced them through the circumstances of providence to write what He deemed necessary for post<\/span>erity. This perspective moves the focus of inspiration from the writers to the ultimate, providential guidance of God. We owe both the writers and God a debt of gratitude for giving us the Word of God.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Destiny & Destination<\/p>\n

\u201cI hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain\u201d says Paul, while imprisoned. His ambitions are repeated a few verses later: \u201cWhen therefore I have completed this \u2026 I will leave f<\/span>or Spain by way of you\u201d (Rom 15:28<\/a>). It\u2019s certainly ambitious for him to be making travel plans. But Paul wasn\u2019t making casual conversation or planning a vacation. He believed that his life and minist<\/span>ry would not end until he reached Spain. We aren\u2019t sure if Paul made it, but he was passionate about getting there. Why? He saw himself in the prophecy of Isaiah 66<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Day of Salvation<\/p>\n

Throughout his letters, Paul quotes Isaiah and other Old Testament books to show that the long-promised day of salvation would come during his lifetime. In the Old Testament, the Jewish belief in Jesus as the Messiah was preceded by something Paul referred to as \u201cthe fullness of the Gentiles\u201d (Rom 11:25<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In Romans 9\u201311<\/a>, Paul says that Gentile (non-Jew) inclusion in the people of God was made possible by the hearts of the Jewish people being temporarily hardened (11:25\u201326<\/a>). Accomplishing the mission of Gentile evangelism would undo this hardening. Only then would Paul\u2019s longing for the Jews to believe in Jesus come to full fruition. And only then would the deliverer (Jesus) come again from Zion (11:26<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Isaiah 66:18\u201320<\/a> prophesies that the Lord would gather all nations to see His glory. He would give them a \u201csign\u201d of His promised salvation. The sign would be delivered by Jewish exiles, sent by God into far-off nations\u2014specifically, the lands of Tarshish, Put, Lud, Tubal, and Javan. The conversion of the Gentiles would result in the Jews from those nations returning to the Lord.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Sign Paul Saw<\/p>\n

Paul interpreted Isaiah 66<\/a> through Christian eyes. The \u201csign\u201d (\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea<\/span>, \u02beot<\/span>,<\/em>) was the virgin-born Jesus (compare Isa 7:14<\/a>\u2014\u201cThe Lord himself will give you a sign\u201d).1<\/a> At Pentecost, Jews wh<\/span>ose ancestors were exiled to foreign nations came to Jerusalem from those nations. They witnessed a sign of the Holy Spirit coming upon the disciples, heard the gospel miraculously in their own language, and believed (<\/span>Acts 2<\/a>). Returning to their countries\u2014nations scattered throughout the Mediterranean\u2014they spread the word to the Gentiles.<\/p>\n

Reading Acts 2<\/a> carefully, we can see that the nations liste<\/span>d move east to west, beginning with the region where Jews were first exiled.2<\/a> Paul\u2019s missionary efforts began at the geographical midpoint of those listed nations and moved westward.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Ends of the Earth<\/p>\n

Spain\u2014the location of ancient Tarshish, listed in Isaiah 66:19<\/a>\u2014was the end of the world, according to the thinking of Paul\u2019s time. When Paul wrote Romans, he and other believers <\/span>had taken the gospel to every region in Isaiah 66<\/a>\u2014every region except Tarshish.<\/p>\n

Paul believed that his mission, \u201cthe fullness of the Gentiles\u201d and the salvation of his fellow Jews, would be fulfilled <\/span>once he reached Spain. His focus was evident when he and Barnabas were rejected at Antioch: \u201c[We] are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, \u2018I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth\u2019\u00a0\u201d (<\/span>Acts 13:46\u201347<\/a>). For Paul, reaching Spain was about the gospel being fulfilled\u2014there was no other option. This is something we woul<\/span>dn\u2019t pick up on without reading our Old Testament.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A Female Apostle<\/p>\n

Paul\u2019s final greetings to the Roman church seem typical. We might just skim over the list of names without a second thought. But one name within that list has become the focus of cont<\/span>roversy and heated debate:<\/p>\n

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me (Rom 16:7<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Junia is most likely th<\/span>e name of a woman. When you read the phrase \u201camong the apostles,\u201d you understand how a simple salutation has become a prooftext in the debate over the role of women in ministry.<\/p>\n

The evidence that Juni<\/span>a is a woman is<\/em> compelling. Its Greek spelling (Iounian<\/span>) could point to either a man or a woman. However, the addition of an accent mark would specify gender\u2014depending on what mark was chosen (Greek h<\/span>as several) and on which syllable the accent mark was placed.<\/p>\n

The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament were written in an uppercase Greek script (uncial) that did not include accents. But copies <\/span>of the Greek New Testament from later periods in a cursive script (minuscule) accent the name as female.<\/p>\n

In ancient Greek literature, outside the New Testament, the masculine form of the name has only<\/span> surfaced once. Ancient Latin texts have also been searched, with some theorizing that Junia might be a shortened form of the male Junianus. Of the 250 or more citations of the name Junia, where a shortening of the name is possible, all have referred to women.<\/span><\/p>\n

The phrase \u201camong<\/em> the apostles\u201d can also be translated as \u201cto<\/em> the apostles,\u201d placing Junia within or outside this ministry category. Either<\/span> translation is possible within the scope of Greek grammar. External examples, though, statistically favor the first option.<\/p>\n

However, there are other issues that are rarely raised in this debate. New <\/span>Testament apostles, for instance, are not all described on equal terms. The original 12 disciples, along with Paul, were a special group. They were firsthand pupils of Christ, some of whom God endowed with supernatural spiritual gifts (<\/span>Acts 5:12<\/a>) and divine revelation in the form of the New Testament.<\/p>\n

Not all apostles had such gifts, however. Aside from the 12 disciples and Paul, it is not clear t<\/span>hat the term \u201capostle\u201d spoke of high authority or even expectations of the role. The Greek word apostolos<\/em> simply means \u201cmessenger\u201d or \u201csent one\u201d\u2014someone sent out for a specific task, akin to our conce<\/span>pt of a missionary. Although the apostle Barnabas did preach and teach (Acts 15:35<\/a>), Epaphroditus is not described in such terms. \u201cApostles\u201d were also sent out to represent churches, but we are not to<\/span>ld in what capacity (2 Cor 8:23<\/a>). Paul did not appoint apostles for local church leadership. As a result, the precise relationship of \u201capostle\u201d to modern church leadership ministry is evasive.<\/p>\n

Althoug<\/span>h there are all these uncertainties, the issue of Junia as a female apostle teaches us that paying attention to the details in the Bible matters. Things can get complicated, but they\u2019re certainly inte<\/span>resting. And we also learn from this example that women played a strategic role in the early church.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Signed, Sealed, and Delivered\u2014to Satan?<\/p>\n

Throughout the New Testament, \u201cfamily language\u201d is used to describe the relationship of believers to God and Jesus. The Lord\u2019s prayer instructs us to address Go<\/span>d as \u201cour Father\u201d (Matt 6:9<\/a>). Hebrews 2:11\u201312<\/a> reveals that Jesus considers believers His own siblings. Paul says Christians comprise \u201cthe household of faith\u201d (Gal 6:10<\/a>). How is it, then, that Paul tel<\/span>ls Christians living in Corinth that believers unrepentantly living in sin should not only be put out of the church (1 Cor 5:9\u201313<\/a>), but also \u201cdelivered to Satan\u201d (1 Cor 5:5<\/a>)?<\/p>\n

If a person is given over<\/span> to Satan, does that mean they then belong to Satan? Does the person lose salvation and have to be re-converted to Christ? Nowhere in the passage does Paul suggest that the believer in question becomes an unbeliever or is wit<\/span>hout hope of salvation.<\/p>\n

After demanding the unrepentant believer be delivered to Satan, Paul notes the goal of such a decision is \u201cfor the destruction of the flesh, so that hi<\/span>s spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord\u201d (1 Cor 5:5<\/a>). What does Paul mean by \u201cdestruction of the flesh?\u201d Paul often uses the word \u201cflesh\u201d (\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03be<\/span>, sarx<\/span>) to refer to the physical body, but sometime<\/span>s he uses it to refer to self-sufficiency, worldliness, or manner of life.1<\/a> Since someone expelled from a church is not going to die as a result, the second possibility is best. Paul is insisting that<\/span> the unrepentant person be dismissed from the church to live in his or her sin and endure the consequences of their behavior.<\/p>\n

Paul\u2019s explanation in verse six helps answer what he means by \u201cdestruction<\/span> of the flesh,\u201d but it does not explain what the phrase \u201cdelivered to Satan\u201d means. For that, we need to look to the Old Testament. The Israelites viewed their land as holy ground and the territory of the non-Israelite nations as controlled by demonic gods. Israel was holy <\/span>ground because that was where the presence of God resided. The opposite was true everywhere else.2<\/a><\/p>\n

This perspective shifted af<\/span>ter the formation of the Church. God\u2019s presence was no longer in the Jerusalem temple, but in the temple which is the body of believers (1 Cor 3:16\u201317<\/a>).3<\/a> Where a church was, the Lord was present. Ther<\/span>efore, the church was considered \u201choly ground\u201d; anywhere outside the church was the demonic realm. Hence Paul\u2019s thinking: To be expelled from the church\u2014the local manifestation of the place God lives\u2014was to be thrust into the realm of Satan.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Treason & Translation<\/p>\n

A famous Italian proverb declares \u201ctraduttore<\/span>, traditore<\/em>,\u201d which means, \u201ctranslator, traitor.\u201d Those who assume this is true are unaware how difficult it is to produce a translat<\/span>ion. Every translator at some point invariably discards the meaning of the original text.<\/p>\n

A committee of scholars assembled to produce a translation typically adopts an overarching philosophy of trans<\/span>lation. In simplest terms, there are two. The first is called \u201cformal equivalence,\u201d which seeks to account for virtually every word in the original text by producing its English counterpart in translation. This is \u201cword-for-word\u201d or \u201cliteral\u201d translation. The second is called \u201cdynamic equivalence.\u201d This appro<\/span>ach seeks to capture the thought of the original verse in context, and then re-create that thought using whatever English words are most precise. This is \u201cthought-for-thought\u201d translation. But adopting an approach does not mean that all the translators will apply it equally. There is also a matter of interpretation. When the biblical text allows more than one translation due to ambiguity in the context, grammar, or word usage, a translator needs to make his or her own decision\u2014which can lead to controvers<\/span>y.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

First Corinthians 7:1<\/a> is illustrative of the potential hazard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

ESV<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cIt is good for a man not to have sexual relations with<\/strong> a woman.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

NASB<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cIt is good for a man not to touch<\/strong> a wo<\/span>man.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

NIV<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cIt is good for a man not to marry<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

NLT<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u201cIt is good to live<\/strong> a celibate life<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The most \u201cword-for-word\u201d of these translations is that of the nasb, which captures the literal reading of the <\/span>Greek words in the verse, particularly the verb \u201ctouch\u201d (\u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9<\/span>, haptomai<\/span>). Other translations move away from the ambiguous \u201ctouch\u201d to \u201chave sexual relations with\u201d (esv<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The most controversial ren<\/span>derings are the niv (\u201cIt is good for a man not to marry\u201d) and the nlt (\u201cIt is good to live a celibate life\u201d). How is it that the translators could go from a Greek word that means \u201ctouch\u201d to these opti<\/span>ons?<\/p>\n

The answer is that the translators factored in what was presumed to be the wider context of the chapter and, ultimately, the writer. In 1 Corinthians 7:7\u20138<\/a>, Paul describes himself as single. His <\/span>advice to the Corinthians in several places is that it would be wiser for those who are not married to remain unmarried (1 Cor 7:7\u20138<\/a>, 26\u201327<\/a>) because of an undefined \u201cpresent distress\u201d (7:26<\/a>). This con<\/span>text is presumed in 7:1<\/a> by the niv and nlt.<\/p>\n

These translations are certainly plausible, but still problematic. While Paul notes a \u201cpresent distress\u201d in 7:27<\/a>, can we be certain that Paul was thinking o<\/span>f that distress in 7:1<\/a>? Might Paul have been thinking about sexual morality instead? The verses that immediately follow 7:1<\/a> speak frankly of sexual temptation (7:2\u20134<\/a>). If morality was on Paul\u2019s mind, <\/span>then the esv<\/a> is more on target. The point would then be an admonition to avoid sexual contact outside of marriage, not to avoid marriage itself.<\/p>\n

Translation isn\u2019t just a matter of matching words of on<\/span>e language to words of another. Rather than consider Bible translators as traitors, we need to be sympathetic to their burden. Reading multiple translations can reveal the complexities of the process.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Charlton Heston Had Company<\/p>\n

When we hear \u201cMoses\u2019 Law,\u201d we think of the story we heard in Sunday school, or the scene from The Ten Commandments<\/em> where Charlton Heston (a.k.a., Moses) gets the two tablet<\/span>s from God. But what if I told you Moses and God weren\u2019t alone?<\/p>\n

It may come as a surprise, but the New Testament tells us in three places that the Law was delivered by angels<\/em>, members of God\u2019s divine <\/span>council. Here are two of those passages:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Acts 7:52\u201353<\/a>: \u201cWhich of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you<\/span> have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels<\/em> and did not keep it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2022 Hebrews 2:1\u20132<\/a>: \u201cTherefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drif<\/span>t away from it. For since the message declared by angels<\/em> proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salva<\/span>tion?\u201d<\/p>\n

I was pretty shocked the first time I saw these verses. And I certainly hadn\u2019t heard about them in church. So what passage in the Old Testament were they quoting? That\u2019s the second jolt: There <\/span>isn\u2019t a clear reference to it\u2014at least not in the Old Testament we use.<\/p>\n

The New Testament writers didn\u2019t invent the idea, though. They got it from Deuteronomy 33:2\u20134<\/a> in their Septuagint, the Greek tra<\/span>nslation of the Old Testament. The Septuagint more clearly connects angels to the Law than the traditional Hebrew text upon which our English translations are based.<\/p>\n

So they were using a translation. <\/span>We can understand that. But we\u2019re not done. It gets a bit stranger. The third New Testament passage that talks about the Law and angels is found in Galatians 3:19\u201320<\/a>. And this time, it isn\u2019t just a cr<\/span>owd of angels with Moses and God:<\/p>\n

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect throu<\/em><\/span>gh angels by a mediator<\/em>. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party<\/em>; but God is one<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Galatians 3:19<\/a> informs us that there was a mediator between<\/em> God and the angels when the Law was given. <\/span>Most scholars assume this is a reference to Moses. But why didn\u2019t Paul just say that? And why repeat part of the creed of Israel, the Shema (Deut 6:4\u20136<\/a>), in the next verse (\u201cGod is one\u201d)?<\/p>\n

The mediator<\/span> was likely the Angel of the Lord, the Old Testament version of God in human form. Paul emphasized that \u201cGod is one\u201d to keep the Galatians from being confused about his viewpoint. So the God of Israel<\/span> met Moses in human form, but where is the embodied God in the story of the giving of the Law? Moses answers that question in Deuteronomy 9:10<\/a>:<\/p>\n

And the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone written wi<\/em><\/span>th the finger of God<\/em>, and on them were all the words that the Lord had spoken with you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly.<\/p>\n

Human physicality (\u201ca finger\u201d) is applie<\/span>d to God, who is a disembodied spirit (John 4:24<\/a>; Isa 31:3<\/a>). The God of Israel came to Moses in human form, just as He had before, when the Angel of the Lord appeared<\/em> to Moses in the burning bush (Exo<\/span>d 3:1\u20133<\/a>; Acts 7:35<\/a>). We find support for this proposal in the words of Stephen, who, in the same speech where he said the Law was given by angels, tells us that \u201cthe angel\u201d spoke to Moses at Mount Sin<\/span>ai (Acts 7:38<\/a>).<\/p>\n

As much as I love The Ten Commandments<\/em>, the book is more fascinating than the movie.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When Abraham Met Jesus<\/p>\n

Some of the most startling things in the Bible are hidden in plain sight.<\/p>\n

Galatians 3:7<\/a> is a case in point. Amid the predictable focus on law, grace, and the gospel, Paul blinds<\/span>ides us: \u201cthe Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham<\/em>, saying, \u2018In you shall all the nations be blessed.\u2019\u00a0\u201d<\/p>\n

But Abraham lived two <\/span>millennia before Jesus. There\u2019s nothing about a crucified Savior in the stories about Abraham. What is Paul thinking? To correctly process Galatians 3:7<\/a>, we need to think about the gospel in different<\/span> terms.<\/p>\n

We typically think of the gospel in terms of the crucified Savior, Jesus, dying for our sins. But the work of Christ was just the means to accomplish what God sought. God wanted a sinless, hol<\/span>y, human<\/em> family. The sacrifice of Jesus\u2014fully God and fully human\u2014was the necessary mechanism to achieve that larger goal. The gospel is God\u2019s plan to become a man so He could have that holy, human fa<\/span>mily. Could Abraham have grasped that?<\/p>\n

God\u2019s decision to produce His family through Abraham is described in Genesis 12:1\u20133<\/a>: \u201cI will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name <\/span>great \u2026 and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.\u201d Paul quoted part of that passage in Galatians 3:7<\/a>. Paul believed that as a result of that divine encounter, Abraham came away with t<\/span>he knowledge of the gospel: God would become a man to provide the means for a human family. And even more than that, Abraham discerned that he and his offspring\u2014which didn\u2019t yet exist, and which seemingly couldn\u2019t exist\u2014were a critical part of that plan. Was Paul reading a different<\/span> Old Testament than us? No, Paul got his information about the good news where all the gospel writers did\u2014Jesus (Gal <\/span>1:12<\/a>; 1 Cor 15:8<\/a>).<\/p>\n

If John 8:56<\/a> is any indication, Jesus happened to be an authority on Abraham\u2019s divine encounter with God: \u201cYour father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it<\/em> and was g<\/span>lad.\u201d Abraham saw<\/em> Jesus\u2019 day? The Jews listening to Jesus immediately understood Him to mean that He had met Abraham. That\u2019s why they said in the next verse, \u201cYou are not yet fifty years old, and have<\/span> you seen Abraham?\u201d They were actually right\u2014on both counts.<\/p>\n

We know that John referred to Jesus as the Word (John 1:1<\/a>). Less well known is that the \u201cWord of the Lord\u201d is at times an Old Testament des<\/span>cription of the embodied<\/em> God of Israel. For example, Jeremiah was visited by \u201cthe word of the Lord\u201d (Jer 1:2<\/a>, 4<\/a>) whom he called Lord God (Jer 1:6<\/a>). The Lord God, the \u201cword,\u201d is embodied in human form <\/span>in Jeremiah 1:7<\/a>: \u201cThen the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth.\u201d There are other such passages in the Old Testament. One of them is Genesis 15<\/a>, where the covenant promises between God and Abrah<\/span>am were sealed: \u201cAfter these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision.\u201d Notice that this was a vision<\/em>. Genesis 12<\/a>, the passage Paul quoted in Galatians 3<\/a>, has the same language: \u201cThen the<\/span> Lord appeared<\/em> to Abram.\u201d<\/p>\n

Paul wasn\u2019t out of his mind. Abraham had met the Word, and through that encounter, he understood the salvation plan of God.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

How Many Times Is Jesus Coming Back?<\/p>\n

Few things in the Bible attract more attention than prophecies about the end times. Even people with only a passing acquaintance with the Bible know that it forete<\/span>lls a second coming of Jesus. Those who study the Bible know the book of Revelation reveals that the second coming brings an end to the reign of the antichrist (the \u201cbeast\u201d; Rev 19:11\u201321<\/a>). The risen C<\/span>hrist, the incarnation of God, returns to earth not as a suffering Savior, but as the glorious warrior-king. But does the Bible describe an earlier return of Jesus\u2014one that precedes this triumphant arrival?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The \u201cRapture\u201d<\/p>\n

Some Christians believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:16\u201317<\/a> describes how all believers will be taken from earth, dead or alive, at an appearing of Jesus before the second coming described in Revelation 19<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord (1 Thess 4:16\u201317<\/a>).<\/p>\n

This earlier return of Jesus is called the \u201crapture\u201d by believers who embrace this idea. The term is derived from the Latin word rapiemur<\/em> (from rapio<\/em>, meaning \u201cto carry off\u201d) used by the translator of the Latin Vulgate for the Greek word harpaz\u014d<\/span> (\u1f01\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9<\/span>), translated \u201ccaught up\u201d in 1 Thessalonians 4:17<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Other Christians, however, reject the idea that 1 Thessalonians 4<\/a> speaks of a different event than the return of Jesus to earth described in Revelation 19<\/a>. For them, there will only be one return of Jesus in the future. So, who\u2019s right?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Harmonizing<\/p>\n

The answer to the question is \u201cit depends.\u201d If we were to read all the passages in the New Testament that speak of Jesus\u2019 future return, along with Old Testament passages that speak of a final, climactic visitation by God on earth that will put an end to evil (\u201cthe Day of the Lord\u201d), we would notice immediately that they do not agree in the details or descriptions. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:16\u201317<\/a> seemingly has Jesus returning in the air, gathering believers into the clouds, whereas the prophet Zechariah foretold the physical arrival of the pierced Lord on the Mount of Olives with His holy ones at the Day of the Lord (Zech 12:10<\/a>; 14:1\u20135<\/a>; compare Rev 19:14<\/a><\/p>\n

Interpreters are forced to make a decision: Should we take these verses and split them into two events, or should we harmonize them? The former approach produces two events: a rapture and a second coming. Harmonization, the second approach, eliminates the rapture and leaves only one event: the second coming. Harmonization is a tried-and-true method frequently used by interpreters to resolve disagreements between the Gospel accounts of Jesus\u2019 life. It is also used to reconcile Old Testament accounts of Israelite history recorded in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. But many see the harmonized differences as \u201cinconsistencies\u201d between biblical prophecies.<\/p>\n

The Bible doesn\u2019t telegraph which interpretive approach is correct. There is no appendix on interpretation following the book of Revelation. Both views are based on choices we bring to the text. Neither is self-evident as the \u201cbiblical position.\u201d That realization should prompt us to act with humility and charity toward each other, no matter what position we take.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

What\u2019s Jesus Waiting For?<\/p>\n

I recall the traumatic experience of seeing the movie A Thief in the Night<\/em> as a teenager. The film was about how Jesus could return at any moment\u2014like a thief in the night, a description borrowed from 1 Thessalonians 5:2<\/a>. The message: If we weren\u2019t believers, we could be left behind by the Lord. The movie didn\u2019t lead to my decision to put my faith in Christ, but it did accomplish one desired effect\u2014it scared me. Is the idea of the imminent return of Jesus biblical?<\/p>\n

Jesus warned His followers to be ready for His return; even He did not know the precise day or hour it would happen (Matt 24:36<\/a>). Therefore, He would return unexpectedly (24:50<\/a>). Other passages written after Jesus\u2019 resurrection suggest that His return could be very soon (1 Cor 1:7<\/a>; Titus 2:13<\/a>), even \u201cat hand\u201d (Phil 4:5<\/a>; Jas 5:8\u20139<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Two thousand years have passed since these blunt statements were made, leading many to believe that they have been misunderstood. Additional obstacles to the idea of an \u201cimminent\u201d return emerge from other Scripture passages. The New Testament suggests that certain signs or events would precede the return of Jesus. For example, the temple had to be destroyed (Matt 24:2<\/a>), and there would be celestial signs indicating His return (Matt 24:30<\/a>; Luke 21:11<\/a>).<\/p>\n

In three of His parables, Jesus suggested that His return would not be immediate but after a delay (Luke 19:11\u201327<\/a>;Matt 25:5<\/a>, 19<\/a>)\u2014at least until the death of an aged Peter (John 21:18<\/a>). Paul believed, apparently on the basis of Matthew 24:14<\/a>, that the gospel had to reach all the Gentile nations before the salvation plan of God was fulfilled and Jesus would return (Rom 11:12<\/a>, 25<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Even 1 Thessalonians 5<\/a>, the chapter in which the \u201cthief in the night\u201d phrase is found, suggests that believers will have some sort of inkling about the time of His return. Note how Paul uses nouns and pronouns to distinguish believers as able to discern something unbelievers will not:<\/p>\n

Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, \u201cThere is peace and security,\u201d then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober (1 Thess 5:1\u20136<\/a>).<\/p>\n

If believers have some sense of when the Lord will return, the idea that Jesus\u2019 return could be at any moment may be incorrect. To solve this problem, many Christians argue that 1 Thessalonians 5<\/a> refers to the return of Jesus at Armageddon, but that there will be an earlier return (a rapture) that will happen before any sign or hint.1<\/a> Perhaps the best advice is that instead of describing Jesus\u2019 return as imminent, we might want to think of it as impending. Either perspective can agree on that thought.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

God\u2019s Right-Hand Woman? Wisdom in Hebrews 1<\/a><\/p>\n

Hebrews 1:2<\/a> tells us that in these \u201clast days\u201d God has spoken to humanity \u201cby his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom he created the<\/span> world\u201d (compare Col 1:16<\/a>; 1 Cor 8:6<\/a>). Jesus\u2019 role as co-creator with God is a familiar doctrine. But in verse 3<\/a> there\u2019s something that\u2019s a bit odd: \u201cHe [Jesus] is the radiance of the glory of God.\u201d W<\/span>hat\u2019s strange about the phrase isn\u2019t its meaning. We get the metaphor. Jesus \u201cshines forth\u201d the glory of God; He is a brilliant reflection of what God is like. What\u2019s odd is where the idea comes from, and how startling it would have been to the Jewish Christians for whom the book of Hebr<\/span>ews was intended.<\/p>\n

The word \u201cradiance\u201d (\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1<\/span>, apaugasma<\/span>) occurs only here in the New Testament. To figure <\/span>out what the writer of Hebrews meant, we have to look at his source. The writer is quoting the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, but the Septuagint included books that many Jews and Christians today do not consider part of the bi<\/span>blical canon, but which some in ancient times considered sacred. The phrase in Hebrews 1:2<\/a> comes from one of these books\u2014Wisdom of Solomon<\/em>. How can w<\/span>e be sure? Because the word apaugasma<\/span> is found only one time in the Septuagint: Wisdom of Solomon<\/em><\/a> 7:26<\/a>. Sure, the scarcity of the word is curious, but where\u2019s the surprise? Not only is the word extrem<\/span>ely uncommon, but the source of the Hebrews 1:2<\/a> quotation has a woman<\/em> as God\u2019s personified reflection. Welcome to the biblical twilight zone.<\/p>\n

For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her <\/span>pureness she pervades and penetrates all things.<\/p>\n

For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.<\/p>\n

For she <\/span>is a reflection (apaugasma<\/span>) of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness. (Wisdom of Solomon<\/em><\/a> 7:24\u201326<\/a> nrsv)<\/p>\n

The Jewish writer of Wisdom of Solomon<\/em> got the ide<\/span>a of personified Wisdom as a woman from the book of Proverbs.1<\/a> While the term most often refers to practical, insightful living according to God\u2019s law, the writer of Proverbs at times portrays Wisdom <\/span>as a woman (\u201cher<\/em> voice\u201d; compare Prov 1:20\u201333<\/a>; 3:13\u201316<\/a>; 4:6<\/a>; 7:4<\/a>; 9:1\u20136<\/a>). Proverbs 8:1<\/a> describes Wisdom speaking to God\u2019s people (\u201cDoes not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice?\u201d). <\/span>But what is especially remarkable about Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22\u201330<\/a> is that she is described as God\u2019s co-creator:<\/p>\n

The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was app<\/span>ointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began \u2026 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth \u2026 I was there when he [God] set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep \u2026 Then I was the crafts<\/span>man at his side (niv).<\/p>\n

The wording here echoes Proverbs 3:19<\/a>, where we read, \u201cBy wisdom the Lord laid the earth\u2019s foundat<\/span>ions; by understanding he set the heavens in place\u201d (niv; compare Jer 10:12<\/a>). Wisdom, personified as a woman, is cast as God\u2019s agent of creation in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n

How is this consistent with the N<\/span>ew Testament teaching about Jesus? We need a little more backdrop to answer that question.<\/p>\n

About 250 years before Jesus, Jewish theologians equated the Torah with wisdom mainly because torah<\/em> (\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4<\/span>) wa<\/span>s also a grammatically feminine word in Hebrew and the Torah made one wise. This meant that, to many Jews, the Torah (Wisdom) was divine:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Sirach<\/em><\/a> 24:1\u20133<\/a>, 22<\/a>: \u201cWisdom praises herself, and tells of her<\/span> glory in the midst of her people. In the assembly of the Most High she opens her mouth, and in the presence of his hosts she tells of her glory: \u2018I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist\u2019 \u2026 All this is t<\/span>he book of the covenant of the Most High God, the law that Moses commanded us\u201d (nrsv).<\/p>\n

\u2022 Wisdom of Solomon<\/em><\/a> 9:1<\/a>, 4<\/a>, 10<\/a>, 18<\/a>: \u201cGod of my ancestors and Lord of m<\/span>ercy \u2026 give me the wisdom that sits by your throne \u2026 Send her forth from the holy heavens, and from the throne of your glory send her \u2026 that I may learn what is pleasing to you \u2026 and people were taught what pleases you, and were saved b<\/span>y wisdom\u201d (nrsv).<\/p>\n

For these writers, the word spoken by God at the creation in Genesis 1:3<\/a> was Wisdom\u2014the word of the Torah. Proverbs 8:22<\/a> cast this spoken Wisdom a<\/span>s a living divine entity, whose instruction would later be written down by Moses. Wisdom (Torah) was God\u2019s agent of creation and even the Savior for Jewish theology.<\/p>\n

The New Testament writers had anot<\/span>her view. Paul\u2019s description of Jesus as \u201cthe Wisdom of God\u201d (1 Cor 1:24<\/a>, 30<\/a>) and God\u2019s agent of creation was a theological jolt to Jewish ears. It places Paul\u2019s struggle to articulate the gospel \u201capa<\/span>rt from the law (Torah)\u201d in an entirely new light (Rom 3:21<\/a>). Defining Wisdom as Jesus was another way for Paul to say that Jesus was indeed the Word of creation, the agent at God\u2019s right hand, as Joh<\/span>n had as well (John 1:1\u20134<\/a>). And that also meant that Jesus was Wisdom (Torah), the means of salvation. In fact, Jesus asserts that He is the fulfillment of Torah (Matt 5:17\u201320<\/a>). It was Jesus who radia<\/span>ted God\u2019s character to humankind as the bearer of salvation. Along with Paul and John, the author of Hebrews articulated this startling view by calling Jesus \u201cthe radiance of the glory of God.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

QUICKB<\/strong><\/span>IT:<\/strong> Proverbs 8<\/a> and the identification of Jesus with Wisdom was a controversial issue for the early church. In the debates at the Council of Nicea, those who believed Jesus to be God\u2019s first creation s<\/span>ought affirmation in Proverbs 8:22<\/a>, where the Lord \u201cbrought forth\u201d Wisdom. The phrase \u201cbrought forth\u201d is a Hebrew verb (\u05e7\u05e0\u05d4<\/span>, qanah<\/span>) that can be used for creation (see Psa 139:13<\/a> [\u201cyou formed<\/em> my inward<\/span> parts\u201d]; Gen 14:19<\/a>, 22<\/a> [\u201ccreator<\/em> of heaven and earth\u201d; some translations have \u201cpossessor,\u201d which is also possible]). The interpretation of this verb was a factor in the distinction between the \u201cbegot<\/span>ten, not made\u201d language of the Nicene Creed.<\/p>\n

Since Wisdom is a personification of an attribute of God, the key questions are \u201cWas there ever a time when God did not have Wisdom? If so, how then can Go<\/span>d be God?\u201d It would be unthinkable to the biblical writer for the God of Israel to lack<\/em> wisdom at some point. Wisdom is eternal since God (with His attributes) is eternal\u2014\u201cbrought forth\u201d as the agent <\/span>of creation.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n

Baptism as Spiritual Warfare<\/p>\n

The pastor had been preaching a series of messages through 1 Peter. When it was time for 1 Peter 3:14\u201322<\/a>, he sincerely announced, \u201cWe\u2019re going to skip this section since it\u2019s just too strange.\u201d He was right and wrong<\/em> that day. As odd as it is, this passage is one of the most compelling in the New Testament\u2014if you understand what it\u2019s saying.<\/p>\n

But even if you should suffer for righteousness\u2019 sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God\u2019s will, than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God\u2019s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. And now the antitype\u2014that is, baptism\u2014saves you, not be means of a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal<\/em> to God for a good conscience<\/em> on the basis of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.<\/p>\n

The theme of 1 Peter is that Christians must withstand persecution and persevere in their faith. To understand how our odd passage fits with that theme, we need to get our heads around the concept of \u201ctypes\u201d and typology\u2014a kind of prophecy that occurs in the Bible.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re most familiar with prophecies directly from the mouth of a prophet. But a \u201ctype\u201d is an unspoken<\/em> prophecy; it is an event, person, or institution that foreshadows something that will come. For example, Paul tells us that Adam was a type<\/em> of Christ. He foreshadowed or echoed something about Jesus, namely that His work on the cross would affect all people just as Adam\u2019s disobedience had a global effect (Rom 5:14<\/a>).<\/p>\n

First Peter 3:14\u201322<\/a> uses typology. The passage presumes that events associated with Genesis 6<\/a>typify<\/em> or foreshadow the gospel and the resurrection.1<\/a> The episode of Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>, where angelic beings (the \u201csons of God\u201d) cohabited with human women\u2014the catalyst to the wickedness that brought the judgment of the flood\u2014was especially significant. For Peter, these events were commemorated during baptism.<\/p>\n

Peter was evidently familiar with Jewish tradition about Genesis 6<\/a>. Jewish writers just prior to the New Testament era taught that God sent Enoch (Gen 5:21\u201324<\/a>) to inform the fallen sons of God that they were doomed for what they had done. These angelic beings were, according to Jewish traditions, held in a prison under the earth.<\/p>\n

Peter saw a theological analogy in these ideas. Just as Jesus was the second Adam for Paul, Jesus is the second Enoch for Peter.<\/p>\n

Enoch descended to the imprisoned fallen angels to announce their doom. First Peter 3:14\u201322<\/a> has Jesus descending to these \u201cspirits in prison,\u201d these fallen angels. He then tells them they were defeated, despite His crucifixion. God\u2019s plan of salvation and ruling His kingdom was still intact. In fact, it was right on schedule. The crucifixion actually meant victory over every demonic force opposed to God. This victory declaration is why 1 Peter 3:14\u201322<\/a> ends with Jesus risen from the dead and set at the right hand of God\u2014above all angels, authorities, and powers.<\/p>\n

How does this relate to baptism? It explains the logic of the passage. Two words in verse 21<\/a> need reconsideration in light of this backdrop. The word most often translated \u201cappeal\u201d (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1<\/span>, eper\u014dt\u0113ma<\/span>) in verse 21<\/a> is best understood as \u201cpledge\u201d here.2<\/a> Likewise, the word \u201cconscience\u201d (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2<\/span>, suneid\u0113sis<\/span>) does not refer to the inner voice of right and wrong here. Rather, the word refers to an attitude or decision that reflects one\u2019s loyalty.3<\/a><\/p>\n

Baptism, then, is not what produces salvation; it is an oath of loyalty to the risen savior\u2014a public avowal of who is on the Lord\u2019s side in the cosmic war between good and evil. It is also a visceral reminder to the defeated fallen angels. Every baptism is a reiteration of their doom in the wake of the gospel and the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

Early Christians understood the typology of this passage and its link back to the fallen angels of Genesis 6<\/a>. Early baptismal formulas included a renunciation of Satan and his angels<\/em> for this very reason.4<\/a> Baptism was and is spiritual warfare.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Jesus Is God: Jude and Peter Tell Me So<\/p>\n

The epistles of Peter and Jude are often overlooked in preaching and Bible study. Not only are they nestled among the more popular letters of Paul and the book <\/span>of Revelation, but portions of these epistles sound odd to our modern sensibilities. That wasn\u2019t the case in the first century. We can better grasp the meaning of these letters if we understand what t<\/span>hey have in common with influential ancient Jewish and Christian writings that were circulating at the time. One of those literary works is known to us today as 1 Enoch<\/em>, a book Peter and Jude draw upo<\/span>n in their letters.<\/p>\n

Jews and Christians of antiquity considered books such as 1 Enoch<\/em> important resources for understanding biblical books and their theology. Peter and Jude were no exception. For exa<\/span>mple, Jude 14\u201315<\/a> draws directly from 1 Enoch<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n

1 Enoch<\/a> 1:9<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Jude 14\u201315<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all f<\/span>lesh for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him.1<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, \u201c<\/span>Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

All of the ideas found in 1 Enoch<\/em><\/a> 1:9<\/a> can be found in three Old Testament passages (Jer 25:30\u201331<\/a>; Isa 66:15\u201316<\/a>; Zech 14:5<\/a>).<\/span> Rather than quote all three, Jude quotes the verse in 1 Enoch<\/em> that combines them. But the real point of interest isn\u2019t Jude\u2019s succinctness; it\u2019s his interpretation of 1 Enoch<\/em>, as well as the Old Test<\/span>ament. In 1 Enoch<\/em><\/a> 1:9<\/a> it is the \u201cGreat Holy One\u201d (God) who is \u201ccoming with myriads of holy ones\u201d from Sinai (1 Enoch<\/em><\/a> 1:4<\/a>) and who has promised to come to earth in the day of the Lord for final judgmen<\/span>t. For Jude (as well as Mark and Paul; compare Mark 8:38<\/a>; 1 Thess 3:13<\/a>) this event is transformed into the return of Jesus Christ (Jude 17\u201318<\/a>). By naming Jesus as the one coming with the holy ones, Ju<\/span>de equates Jesus with the God of Israel. Jude\u2019s citation of 1 Enoch<\/em> is his efficient strategy for declaring that Jesus is God.<\/p>\n

Peter also draws freely upon 1 Enoch<\/em>; his first letter contains roughly 2<\/span>0 allusions to 1 Enoch<\/em><\/a> 108<\/a>. First Peter 1:7\u201318<\/a> illustrates how Peter uses 1 Enoch<\/em> to teach and encourage his audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n

1 Enoch<\/a> 108:6\u201310<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1 Peter 1:6\u201312<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Here are thrown the spirits of the sinners and bl<\/span>asphemers and those who do evil and those who alter everything that the Lord has said by the mouth of the prophets (about) the things that will be done. For there are books and records about them in heaven above, so that the angels may read them and<\/span> know what will happen to the sinners and the spirits of the humble, and those who afflicted their bodies, \u2026 those who love God, and do not love gold and silver and all the good things that are in the world; but gave their bodies to torment; \u2026 The Lord tested them much, and their spirits were found pure, so that they might bless his name.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

You have b<\/span>een grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith\u2014more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire\u2014may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelati<\/span>on of Jesus Christ. Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him.\u2026 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully \u2026 but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels<\/span> long to look \u2026 conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

These similarities show how both 1 Enoch<\/em> and 1 Peter encourage the faithful to persevere. Their love for God is an earthly drama watched by angels. But like Jude, <\/span>Peter turns the object of this love in 1 Enoch<\/em>\u2014the God of Israel\u2014to Jesus. Peter is encouraging those of Jewish heritage to continue following Christ.<\/p>\n

These parallels show us that both Peter and Jude <\/span>want to strengthen the resolve of their readers to follow Jesus, the God of Israel revealed for them. By reading texts such as 1 Enoch<\/em>, we can better understand the cultural background of the Bible. W<\/span>e can also see how the biblical writers engaged texts that shape their theology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n

QUICKBIT:<\/strong> First Enoch<\/em> is placed in a collection of ancient Jewish and Christian writings known as the \u201cpseudepigrapha.\u201d<\/span> This term is often misunderstood to mean \u201cfalse writings,\u201d but it actually describes literature that bears the name of a biblical figure who did not write the book named after him. (Think of the term \u201cpseudonym,\u201d meaning \u201cpen name.\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

When Angels Do Time<\/p>\n

Most Bible study resources describe fallen angels as demons who joined Lucifer in his rebellion against God. But what if I told you that the only place in the New Testament that describes angels sinning does not call them demons, has no connection to Lucifer, and has them in jail? Welcome to the world of 2 Peter and Jude.<\/p>\n

\u2022 2 Peter 2:4<\/a>: \u201cFor \u2026 God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2022 Jude 6<\/a>: \u201cAnd the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day.\u201d<\/p>\n

Second Peter 2:4<\/a> and Jude 6<\/a> are nearly identical in their description of angels doing time, but there are differences that help us figure out \u201cwhat in the spiritual<\/em> world is going on.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jude 6<\/a> defines what 2 Peter 2:4<\/a> means by the angelic sin. These sinning angels \u201cleft their proper dwelling.\u201d Second Peter doesn\u2019t say they were in cahoots with Satan, or that they did anything in Eden. It tells us they left their designated realm of existence and did something in another realm. But what did they do?<\/p>\n

Both 2 Peter and Jude compare the sin of these angels with the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, where the sin involved sexual immorality (2 Pet 2:7<\/a>; Jude 7<\/a>). Second Peter also connects it to the time of Noah. There is only one sin involving a group of angelic beings in the entire Bible, and it coincides with Noah and is sexual in nature. That incident is Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>, where the \u201csons of God\u201d leave heaven, their normal abode, and come to earth and father children (the nephilim<\/span> giants) by human women.<\/p>\n

Two features in these passages in 2 Peter and Jude point to Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>. First, \u201csons of God\u201d is a specific phrase used elsewhere in the Old Testament of angelic beings (Job 1:6<\/a>; 2:1<\/a>; 38:7<\/a>; Psa 89:6<\/a>; Deut 32:8<\/a>).1<\/a> Second, both 2 Peter 2:4<\/a> and Jude 6<\/a> explicitly tell us that these angels are imprisoned in chains of gloomy darkness\u2014in \u201chell\u201d until judgment day.<\/p>\n

While it is true that Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> never tells us what happened to the sons of God who sinned, Jewish writings from between the Testaments do. All Jewish writings that comment on Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a> agree that it was angelic beings who sinned and who were bound and thrown into the Netherworld (e.g., 1 Enoch<\/em><\/a> 18:14\u201319:3<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Most English translations say the angels were thrown into \u201chell\u201d\u2014the most frequent translation of the Greek word \u201cHades.\u201d However, 2 Peter has the angels chained in \u201cTartarus\u201d (\u03a4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2<\/span>). This is t<\/span>he name of the prison of the divine giants in the classical Greek story, Hesiod\u2019s Theogony<\/em>. Jewish writers also used this word for the dark, gloomy Netherworld.<\/p>\n

While these passages are certainly stra<\/span>nge, they telegraph that angelology and demonology are more complex than we might think. They are also the key to understanding Genesis 6:1\u20134<\/a>\u2014and the New Testament doctrine of baptism.2<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Tough Love<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a common myth that God will always bring us back to repentance. This myth is debunked in the first letter of John. While John writes that \u201cif we confess our sins, he is faithful and ju<\/span>st to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness\u201d (1 John 1:9<\/a>), he also tells us that sometimes God never gives us another chance to confess our sins and be forgiven.<\/p>\n

In 1 John 5:1<\/span>6\u201317<\/a>, the apostle gives us the other side of the sin-confession-forgiveness coin:<\/p>\n

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life\u2014to those wh<\/span>o commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.<\/p>\n

Put simply, <\/span>there are sins that Christians commit that don\u2019t lead to death\u2014but there are some that do. Is John talking about a divine law of cause and effect, where a specific sin irrevocably results in death? Not exactly.<\/span><\/p>\n

We can be certain that John has no specific sin in mind because he never names a sin in this passage. John is saying there may come a time when God has had enough of our sin, and then our t<\/span>ime on earth is up. We cannot know when such a time might come\u2014so we shouldn\u2019t be in the habit of sinning with impunity.<\/p>\n

John had actually seen this happen. In Acts 5:1\u201311<\/a>, Luke relates the incident o<\/span>f Ananias and Sapphira, who lied to Peter (and to God) about the proceeds from a piece of property they had sold. They were under no obligation to give any of it to the church, but pretended that they had given all the money to t<\/span>he Lord\u2019s work. When confronted by Peter, both of them collapsed and died on the spot. Luke writes that \u201cgreat fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things\u201d (<\/span>Acts 5:11<\/a>). No kidding.<\/p>\n

No doubt this incident left an imprint on John\u2019s mind. But John would have also known that there was Old Testament precedent for \u201csin unto death\u201d as well. In Numbe<\/span>rs 11<\/a>, in response to the latest wave of complaining about their circumstances, the Lord sent the people of Israel meat to eat in the form of quails. \u201cWhile the meat was yet between their teeth, befor<\/span>e it was consumed, the anger of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord struck down the people with a very great plague\u201d (Num 11:33<\/a>). John\u2019s message to believers wasn\u2019t: \u201cGod doesn\u2019t jud<\/span>ge like that today.\u201d Rather, it was: \u201cStop sinning, because there is a sin that leads to death.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lest we think God is horrible and negative, we would do well to remember that it was John who penned \u201cG<\/span>od is love\u201d\u2014in this same letter (1 John 4:8<\/a>). As with Ananias and Sapphira, removing a sinning believer from the church was (very) tough love. But the fledgling church was all the stronger and more co<\/span>mmitted for it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Jesus, God, a.k.a., The Name<\/p>\n

It only takes a few words to produce dramatic theology. In the short letter we know as 3 John, the apostle is writing to a beloved friend, Gaius (v. 1<\/a>). He commends Gaius <\/span>for ministering to fellow believers who were strangers because \u201cthey have gone out for the sake of the name\u201d (v. 7<\/a>). John doesn\u2019t use the phrase \u201cin Jesus\u2019 name\u201d or \u201cthe name of Jesus\u201d; it\u2019s simply, \u201c<\/span>for the sake of the name.\u201d Why this phrase? Is John trying to keep a secret?<\/p>\n

John isn\u2019t trying to be cryptic. He\u2019s actually drawing on an Old Testament expression. When understood in that original con<\/span>text\u2014and the context of his other writings\u2014John\u2019s odd wording amounts to a powerful statement on the deity of Jesus.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Name in the Old Testament<\/p>\n

In Deuteronomy 12:5<\/a>, God instructed the people of Israel that\u2014when they got into the promised land\u2014He would show them the place where they were to worship Him. God described that location as \u201cthe place that the Lord your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name.\u201d God wasn\u2019t talking about writing His name on a town or a building. He was referring to where the tabernacle\u2014and ultimately the temple\u2014was to be stationed. But He wasn\u2019t talking about writing \u201cYahweh\u201d on that either. Nothing of the sort is ever recorded in Scripture. Rather, God was talking about the place where He would choose to meet Israel personally<\/em>\u2014His very presence<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The description \u201cthe name\u201d actually refers to the presence of God. This presence was at times visibly evident through the so-called \u201cglory cloud\u201d (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:10\u201311<\/a>). At other times the name came in human form. For instance, in Exodus 23:20\u201323<\/a>, God tells Moses that He is sending an angel to bring Israel to the promised land. God warned Moses that this angel would pardon no transgression since \u201cMy name is in him.\u201d We learn from Judges 2:1\u20135<\/a> that the angel did indeed lead them to the land. But how could God\u2019s name be in an angel? The answer is that \u201cthe name\u201d referred to the very presence of God\u2014His essence. This is confirmed in Deuteronomy 4:37<\/a>. Here, we read that\u2014instead of the angel being credited as the one who would bring Israel to Canaan\u2014it is God who brought them there \u201cwith his own presence.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Jesus Has and Is the Name<\/p>\n

Before His arrest and crucifixion, Jesus prays: \u201cI am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which yo<\/span>u have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one\u201d (John 17:11<\/a>). The Gospels are clear that the name given to Mary\u2019s child was Jesus\u2014and that is not God\u2019s name. The idea is that the very essen<\/span>ce of the Father was in<\/em> Jesus. They were one.<\/p>\n

For John, ministering \u201cfor the sake of the name\u201d meant spreading the news of Jesus. By using this simple phrase, he linked Jesus with the name of the Old <\/span>Testament\u2014the very presence of God Himself. God\u2019s name had come \u201cin the flesh\u201d (John 1:1\u20133<\/a>, 14<\/a>; 1 John 4:2<\/a>; 2 John 7<\/a>). It now abides in us\u2014the children of God in the form of the Spirit (1 John 3:24<\/a>; 4<\/span>:4<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

666: What Theories Add Up?<\/p>\n

If there\u2019s one part of the Bible virtually everyone has heard of, it\u2019s 666\u2014the \u201cnumber of Beast.\u201d And if there\u2019s one thing no one can agree upon, it\u2019s what that number stands for. We see 666 in Revelation 13:18<\/a>: \u201clet the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.\u201d The wording here is important: John tells readers that the number must be \u201ccalculated,\u201d which means there must be a hidden meaning behind it. But how do we calculate it?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Calculating Symbolism<\/p>\n

One option for solving this biblical riddle is gematria<\/span>, the idea that numbers have symbolic meaning. While some have called gematria<\/span> a tool for speculation, it actually derives from an ancient convention in languages like Greek and Hebrew where letters of the alphabet are used to represent numbers.<\/p>\n

But gematria<\/span> is not limited to just Revelation; the New Testament contains several other symbolic figures. The 153 fish of John 21:11<\/a> could be interpreted as ancient symbolism for the Church, the body of Christ, and the Old Testament sons of God as analogous to believers in the Church. The Greek word for \u201cdove,\u201d like the dove that descends on Jesus at His baptism, has a numerical value equivalent to the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, thus symbolizing the Alpha and Omega (Rev 1:8<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Calculating 666<\/p>\n

When it comes to 666, one gematria<\/span> explanation is that the number represents Nero Caesar. The Greek Neron Kaisar<\/span> adds up to 1,005, but when the name is transliterated into the Hebrew l<\/span>etters nrwn qsr<\/span>, the sum is 666. Nero Caesar also would explain the variant number of the Beast (616) found in some New Testament manuscripts. Transliterating the Latin Nero Caesar into Hebrew, nrw qs<\/span><\/span>r<\/span>, yields 616, suggesting John may have been thinking of the well-known Nero Redivivus<\/em> myth when writing about the Beast (i.e., that Nero would rise from the dead to destroy Christians).<\/p>\n

The gematria<\/span> <\/span>solution presents three major problems: It could be viewed as cheating with the spellings (the usual Hebrew spelling for Caesar is q\u02best<\/span>,<\/em> not qsr<\/span>, although the qsr<\/span> form does exist). It assumes that rea<\/span>ders knew Hebrew well enough to do the transliteration from Greek back into Hebrew. And, perhaps most tellingly, the early Christian commentators who knew of the Nero redivivus<\/em> myth never identified 6<\/span>66 with Nero.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Ancient Sudoku<\/p>\n

There is another possibility: 666 is a magic square. From very ancient times, philosophers and mathematicians were fascinated that the numbers 1\u201336 could be arranged in squares so that <\/span>each row and diagonal would add up to the same sum (the same principle as modern Sudoku). One magic square has four rows and two diagonals that each add up to 111. The six lines of 111 equal 666. Each magic square in ancient Jewish and Greek tradition was also associated with a celestial body. In the case <\/span>of the 666 square, that body was the sun, which was associated with Zeus, the highest god in <\/span>the Greek pantheon.<\/p>\n

Zeus was often associated with Baal and the mythological north (tsaphon<\/em>) of Canaanite religion. Most relevant to the Beast of Revelation is Baal\u2019s (and Zeus\u2019) title, \u201clord of heave<\/span>n\u201d (Baal-shamem). It is possible that the \u201cabomination of desolation\u201d in Daniel 9:27<\/a> (shiqquts-shamem<\/span>) is a play on Baal-shamem, since the Old Testament writers sometimes substituted words that meant <\/span>\u201cshame\u201d or \u201cabomination\u201d into proper names that formerly contained \u201cBaal\u201d (e.g., Mephibosheth, Ish-Bosheth). This would mean 666 is a symbol for the abominable Baal, the dark lord of the Old Testament world\u2014satanic power in New Testament thinking.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

Perspective Changes Everything<\/p>\n

Is the book of Revelation a linear chronology of distant future events? Or does the book describe the Roman persecution of Christians and Rome\u2019s destruction of the temple\u2014events that occurred in John\u2019s lifetime? The first view opts for a mid-ad 90s authorship (long after the temple was destroyed), the second supports a pre-ad 70s authorship (when the temple was still standing). Each of these readings is complicated by Revelation 11:1\u20132<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, \u201cRise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.\u201d<\/p>\n

Taken literally, these verses indicate the Jerusalem temple still stands\u2014apparent proof that Revelation was written before ad 70. If so, the idea that John is describing the Roman persecution and invasion\u2014empowered by Satan and his hatred for the Church\u2014must be valid. However, while the defense of this view takes this passage literally, most people who prefer to see Revelation written before ad 70 read the rest of Revelation symbolically, matching John\u2019s descriptions to some feature of the Roman Empire and its caesars.<\/p>\n

Those who read Revelation in terms of distant future events often point to the mid-90s authorship. They prefer a symbolic reading of Revelation 11<\/a>\u2014a departure from their preference for taking the rest of Revelation quite literally (even to the point of describing futuristic military weaponry in John\u2019s visions).<\/p>\n

Who is the literalist now? It\u2019s difficult to be consistent in the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n

The early church father Clement of Rome offers us clues for understanding how this passage might be understood. Clement wrote long after the Jerusalem temple had been destroyed, but he used the present<\/em> tense when speaking of the temple (1 Clement<\/em><\/a> 40\u201341<\/a>). He does this to strike an analogy between the orderly worship of the temple in times past with a current concern about worship. The same may be true of Revelation 11:1\u20132<\/a>. It\u2019s not unusual for biblical writers to speak of a past event in language that sounds contemporary. In other words, the temple might be long gone, but references to it serve some other literary or theological purpose taking center stage in the writer\u2019s mind. Nonetheless, this doesn\u2019t exclude the possibility of interpreting Revelation in light of events in Rome. It just proves that neither approach can be fully accepted.<\/p>\n

When reading a complicated book like Revelation, it\u2019s helpful to address where views deviate in their interpretive approach. It might be more revealing than we ever expected.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

Constantine, Conspiracy, and the Canon<\/p>\n

Dan Brown\u2019s best-selling conspiratorial thriller The Da Vinci Code<\/em> seems like ancient history now. At its peak of popularity, the novel set records both for sales and for irritating scholars with its view that Jesus and the 12 apostles held to gnostic heresies. The book\u2019s bizarre plot focuses on Jesus\u2019 bloodline extending through a child born by Mary Magdalene. Within that narrative, Brown asserts that the New Testament canon was determined by the Roman Emperor Constantine\u2014who was not friendly to gnostic Christianity\u2014at a time much later (fourth century ad) than any New Testament scholar would endorse. Unfortunately, this myth has since taken on a life of its own.<\/p>\n

The notion that Constantine decided which books should constitute the New Testament springs from the ancient Life of Constantine<\/em> by Eusebius of Caesarea (ad 263\u2013339). Eusebius reports that in a letter written in ad 331, the emperor instructed him to<\/p>\n

\u2026 order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practised in their art.<\/p>\n

This same Constantine had earlier convened the Council of Nicea (ad 325), famous for its focus on the full deity of Christ against Arianism, which taught that Jesus was a created being. Brown carelessly conflated the two events in The Da Vinci Code<\/em> to put forth the preposterous idea that Constantine had decided at Nicea which books belonged in the New Testament. But can we be sure this didn\u2019t happen? And if not, what exactly did Constantine demand in this letter?<\/p>\n

We can be certain that the Council of Nicea did not determine the books of the New Testament at Constantine\u2019s request. The date of Eusebius\u2019 correspondence tells us that Nicea did not consider the issue of the canon. Today, anyone can read the 20 decisions rendered at Nicea (coincidentally called \u201ccanons\u201d).1<\/a> None of them concerns the New Testament Scriptures. In addition, accounts of what happened at Nicea were described by several early church historians and theologians who lived at the time of the event or shortly thereafter. Their testimony is unanimous in opposition to the idea that Constantine determined the books of the New Testament.<\/p>\n

So what did Constantine want? During the first several centuries of the early church, the issue of which books were to be considered sacred and authoritative was uncertain. Several early lists of sacred books have been recovered, as have records of rejected books. Constantine\u2019s order brought the problem to a point of decision. Once the emperor commanded copies of the sacred books to be distributed, early church leaders were forced to produce the item that needed to be copied. The result was a minimalist consensus canon\u2014books considered authoritative by the vast majority of Christian leaders throughout the empire. Books regularly disputed or already rejected were thus set aside in faith that the Holy Spirit had successfully enlightened His believing Church to reach consensus. We hold that consensus New Testament in our hands today.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction The Bible is a wonderful book. Its pages reveal the epic story of God\u2019s redemption of humankind and the long, bitter conflict against evil. Yet it\u2019s also a book that seems strange to us. While God\u2019s Word was written for us, it wasn\u2019t written to us. It\u2019s been my experience, as a Bible reader, … <\/p>\n

\u201eI Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible\u201c <\/span>weiterlesen<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":240,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237\/revisions\/240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/buch.jehovah-shammah.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}