The Lord is near. Have no worries.

Joel J. Miller gives insight on Philippians 4:6-

If we read the simple admonition, it’s easy to see Paul as some sort of Bob Newhart character yelling, “Stop it!” But before you think I’m being flip, let me redirect the blame to the people who first invented our scripture notation system.
If you read commentators before the advent of the numbering system, they do something different with the emphasis and structure of the passage. The end of verse 5 says, “The Lord is at hand.” The start of 6 says, “Have no anxiety about anything. . . .” Ancient commentators like John Chrysostom and Theodoret of Cyrus read these as one verse, not two separate verses. Chrysostom quotes it as, “The Lord is at hand, in nothing be anxious.” Theodoret’s treatment is the same: “The Lord is near. Have no worries.”
Our eyes are on the wrong thing if we’re merely praying to have life’s worrisome aspects eliminated so we can carry on stress free. Rather, we have no reason for anxiety because the judge of all the earth is already on his way.
Read the rest here.

Could More Books Be Added To The Bible?

In his post Why I Believe the Canon is Theoretically Open (and Am Fine With It), Michael C. Patton writes about whether or not the Canon of Scripture is open or closed. He believes it is open (theoretically), although he doesn't believe any more will be added to it. One of the reasons I liked the post is because it addressed the misuse of Revelation 22:18-19:

No matter how hard you look, you would be hard pressed to find a place that definitely “closes” the canon. Revelation 22:18-19 is often referred to as evidence:
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
The problem with using this passage is that it is specific to the book of Revelation. Just because the book of Revelation occurs last in our canon does not mean this warning applies to the entire Bible. It is meant to communicate a general statement about those who would be tempted to add to or take away from God’s word in general, and to the book of Revelation specifically. Yet the same warning is given in the books of Deuteronomy and Proverbs:
Deuteronomy 4:2: You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.

Proverbs 30:6: Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
Does this mean that once Deuteronomy or Proverbs were complete, no one was supposed to add any other books? I don’t know anyone who would make that argument.

The War Scroll

The War Scroll is part of the Dead Sea Scrolls and mostly describes the battle between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. You can read it here. Most of it consists of mundane details of battle order but there were some interesting parts. I was initially curious to read it because of some commonalities with Ephesians:

The first attack of the Sons of Light shall be undertaken against the forces of the Sons of Darkness, the army of Belial...
- War Scroll Col 1:1

For you were once darkness, but are now light in the Lord. Walk as children of light,
- Ephesians 5:8

wherein aforetime ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience;
- Ephesians 2:2

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
- Ephesians 5:6
Also, notice the passage below echoes the Ephesians verses as well:
...You yourself made Belial for the pit, an angel of malevolence, his [dominio]n is in darkne[ss] and his counsel is to condemn and convict. All the spirits of his lot -- the angels of destruction-- walk in accord with the rule of darkness, for it is their only [des]ire...
- War Scroll Col 13:10-12
Belial is another name for Satan and his angels are described as angels of destruction. I talk about that in my post on Satan as well. In that post, I also talk about Satan's function of testing. See the passages below regarding testing:
...Throughout all our generations You have made Your mercies wondrous for the rem[nant of the people] during the dominion of Belial. With all the mysteries of his hatred they have not led us astray from Your covenant. His spirits of destruction You have driven [away from us. And when the me]n of his dominion [condemned themselves]...
- War Scroll Col 14:9-10

When [Belial] prepares himself to assist the Sons of Darkness, and the slain among the infantry begin to fall by God's mysteries and to test by these mysteries all those appointed for battle,
- War Scroll Col 16:11
Also, compare the passage below with Eph. 5:11:
...For they are a wicked congregation, all their deeds are in darkness;
- War Scroll Col 15:9

Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
- Ephesians 5:11
This battle is described as a "Day of Vengeance" like I talk about in my Ephesians post on The Day of Destruction.
...All of them shall be volunteers for battle, pure of spirit and flesh, and prepared for the day of vengeance...
- War Scroll Col 7:5
Ultimately, I don't think Paul was alluding to The War Scroll when he wrote Ephesians but they do seem to share a common vernacular.

Gehenna Was Not A Smoldering Garbage Dump

You may have heard that the Valley of Himmon (Gehenna) was a place where garbage was continually burned. Turns out there isn't much evidence for that claim. The Baker Book House Church Connection blog quotes an article in Bibliotheca Sacra

The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi’s commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources.
You can read the rest here.

The Myth of the Rope around the High Priest’s Ankle

You may have heard the story of how the high priest wore a rope around his ankle, so that, if God struck him dead in the Holy of Holies, the other priests could drag him back out.  But this story doesn't seem to have much evidence to support it.  ChristianAnswers.net discusses the matter:

Dr. W.E. Nunnally, a professor of Hebrew and early Judaism, has reported:

“The rope on the high priest legend is just that: a legend. It has obscure beginnings in the Middle Ages and keeps getting repeated. It cannot be found anywhere in the Bible, the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, the Pseudepigrapha, the Talmud, Mishna, or any other Jewish source. It just is not there.”
You can read the rest here.

"Abba" Does Not Mean "Daddy"

I know many of my charismatic friends will be saddened by this but it appears that "Abba" does not mean "Daddy". That's okay, you can still call God, "Daddy" if you want to. From the Gospel Coalition Blog:

In the Aramaic language of the time of Jesus, there was absolutely no other word [than Abba] available if Jesus wished to speak of or address God as father. Naturally such speaking of and addressing thereby would lose its special character, for it is then indeed the only possible form!
You can read the rest here.

Are there Satan "types" in the Old Testament?

There are many claims of types of Christ in the Old Testament, from David to Jonah. These hidden meanings are hard to prove but fun to think about and can give us a deeper understanding. In my previous post about Satan, I wrote about how the function of a "satan" is to test the faithfulness of people and to execute judgement and destruction of behalf of God. I also mentioned that it is hard to grasp the concept of a satan because there are no earthly equivalents (at least, not to my knowledge). So if we could find a "type" of satan in the Old Testament, perhaps it would give us some more insight.

The best example that I feel is a type of satan, is Potiphar in the story of Joseph.

Now Joseph had been taken down to Egypt. Potiphar, an Egyptian who was one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard, bought him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him there.
- Genesis 39:1
What is translated as "captain of the guard" is actually "captain of the executioners" in the Hebrew. Now Potiphar is not described as a tester of faith but his wife does test Joseph's faith. This also ties in nicely with Joseph as a Christ type. Joseph is rejected by his brothers as Christ was rejected by the Jews. Joseph is put into prison like Christ descended into Hades. And Joseph emerges to become 2nd only to Pharaoh just like Christ emerges from Hades to become 2nd only to God the Father.

Two other possible types of satan are in Daniel and in Esther. In both cases, someone both tests and tries to execute Daniel/Esther.

To stop Haman's plan to execute the Jews, Esther would be tested by having to risk her life:
Hathak went back and reported to Esther what Mordecai had said. Then she instructed him to say to Mordecai, “All the king’s officials and the people of the royal provinces know that for any man or woman who approaches the king in the inner court without being summoned the king has but one law: that they be put to death unless the king extends the gold scepter to them and spares their lives. But thirty days have passed since I was called to go to the king.”
- Esther 4:9-11
In The Book of Daniel royal officials both create a plan that will test Daniel's faith to God and have him executed if he continues to pray to his God.
The royal administrators, prefects, satraps, advisers and governors have all agreed that the king should issue an edict and enforce the decree that anyone who prays to any god or human being during the next thirty days, except to you, Your Majesty, shall be thrown into the lions’ den. Now, Your Majesty, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.” So King Darius put the decree in writing.

Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before.

- Daniel 6:6-10
Now in both of these cases, the question arises: Who does the king represent in those stories? The natural inclination is say that it is God. But this does not make sense in that the kings make laws that contradict what God would want. I would suggest that the kings represent one of the "sons of God" (see my post on the Divine Council) that was given that nation by God to rule over and both Daniel and Esther represent the Jewish nation/exiles.

Satan - Just doing his job?

Satan, as a personal name, is rarely found in the Old Testament. Where the name "Satan" is found, it is usually "The Satan" in the Hebrew, even though it is usually translated as simply "Satan". The one time it is used as a personal name, it may be referring to God. Mike Heiser explains the details in his post, The Absence of Satan in the Old Testament. He concludes:

Basically, “the satan” in Job is an officer of the divine council (sort of like a prosecutor). His job is to “run to and fro throughout the earth” to see who is and who is not obeying Yahweh. When he finds someone who isn’t and is therefore under Yahweh’s wrath, he “accuses” that person. This is what we see in Job — and it actually has a distinct New Testament flavor. (We also see it in Zechariah 3). But the point here is that this satan is not evil; he’s doing his job.
So one of "The Satan's" characteristics is to test people's faithfulness We see this not only in Job but also a similar account in the Book of Jubilees when Mastema (who is equated with the personal name, Satan), requests a 10th of the demons to test mankind:
And the chief of the spirits, Mastêmâ, came and said: "Lord, Creator, let some of them remain before me, and let them hearken to my voice, and do all that I shall say unto them; for if some of them are not left to me, I shall not be able to execute the power of my will on the sons of men; for these are for corruption and leading astray before my judgment, for great is the wickedness of the sons of men." And He said: "Let the tenth part of them remain before him, and let nine parts descend into the place of condemnation." And one of us He commanded that we should teach Noah all their medicines; for He knew that they would not walk in uprightness, nor strive in righteousness. And we did according to all His words: all the malignant evil ones we bound in the place of condemnation, and a tenth part of them we left that they might be subject before Satan on the earth.
- The Book of Jubilees 10:8-11
The Book of Jubilees also speaks of the sacrifice of Isaac as being a test from Mestema:
And the prince Mastêmâ came and said before God, "Behold, Abraham loveth Isaac his son, and he delighteth in him above all things else; bid him offer him as a burnt-offering on the altar, and Thou wilt see if he will do this command, and Thou wilt know if he is faithful in everything wherein Thou dost try him." . And the Lord knew that Abraham was faithful in all his afflictions; for He had tried him through his country and with famine, and had tried him with the wealth of kings, and had tried him again through his wife, when she was torn (from him), and with circumcision, and had tried him through Ishmael and Hagar, his maid-servant, when he sent them away. And in everything wherein He had tried him, he was found faithful, and his soul was not impatient, and he was not slow to act; for he was faithful and a lover of the Lord. And God said to him, "Abraham, Abraham"; and he said, "Behold, (here) am I."

And He said, "Take thy beloved son whom thou lovest, (even) Isaac, and go unto the high country, and offer him on one of the mountains which I will point out unto thee." And he rose early in the morning and saddled his ass, and took his two young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood of the burnt-offering, and he went to the place on the third day, and he saw the place afar off. And he came to a well of water, and he said to his young men, "Abide ye here with the ass, and I and the lad shall go (yonder), and when we have worshipped we shall come again to you." And he took the wood of the burnt-offering and laid it on Isaac his son, and he took in his hand the fire and the knife, and they went both of them together to that place. And Isaac said to his father, "Father"; and he said, "Here am I, my son." And he said unto him, "Behold the fire, and the knife, and the wood; but where is the sheep for the burnt-offering, father?" And he said, "God will provide for himself a sheep for a burnt-offering, my son." And he drew near to the place of the mount of God.

And he built an altar, and he placed the wood on the altar, and bound Isaac his son, and placed him on the wood which was upon the altar, and stretched forth his hand to take the knife to slay Isaac his son. And I stood before him, and before the prince of the Mastêmâ, and the Lord said, "Bid him not to lay his hand on the lad, nor to do anything to him, for I have shown that he feareth the Lord." And I called to him from heaven, and said unto him: "Abraham, Abraham"; and he was terrified and said: "Behold, (here) am I." And I said unto him: "Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything to him; for now I have shown that thou fearest the Lord, and hast not withheld thy son, thy first-born son, from me." And the prince of the Mastêmâ was put to shame; and Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, a single ram caught . . . by his horns, and Abraham went and took the ram and offered it for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son. - Book of Jubilees 16:16-18:12
Again, another example of testing is the garden of Eden when the serpent tempts Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent is not necessarily being morally evil but is testing for the purposes of God.

And again, another example of Satan testing, is when he tested Jesus during his 40 days in the desert.

More Than One Satan

The term satan (not used as a personal name), is a title that can be applied to more that one being.
And I heard the fourth voice fending off the Satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth.
- Enoch 40:7
And a command has gone forth from the presence of the Lord concerning those who dwell on the earth that their ruin is accomplished because they have learnt all the secrets of the angels, and all the violence of the Satans, and all their powers--the most secret ones--and all the power of those who practice sorcery, and the power of witchcraft, and the power of those who make molten images for the whole earth:
- Enoch 65:6

And I saw Him, and He was in the firmament, but He had not changed Himself into their form, and all the angels of the firmament and the Satans saw Him and they worshipped.
- The Ascension of Isaiah 11:23
Another characteristic of a "satan" is that they are like executioners and bring destruction when God expresses His wrath and judgement.
For I saw all the angels of punishment abiding (there) and preparing all the instruments of Satan. And I asked the angel of peace who went with me: 'For whom are they preparing these instruments?' And he said unto me: 'They prepare these for the kings and the mighty of this earth, that they may thereby be destroyed.
- Enoch 53:3-5
And all their days they will complete and live in peace and in joy, And there will be no Satan nor any evil destroyer;
- Book of Jubilees 23:29
The concept of a "satan" is difficult because we have no real earthly equivalent. When God is referred to as a king, we can grasp that because there have been earthly kings to at least give us a general understanding of what a king is.

Is Satan Evil?

Having said all that, just because Satan is doing his job, doesn't mean he's not morally evil. The translators of the Septuagint translated the term "satan" as "devil" - meaning "slanderer", and it implies Satan(s) falsely accuses.

The Divine Council of 70 gods in the Bible

Did God preside over an assembly of gods?

Ugarit was an ancient city located near Israel. The ancient writings that were discovered there are similar to the ancient Hebrew language and culture and have been helpful for Biblical studies in terms of providing cultural and textual context. The Ugaritic ancient texts speak of a Divine Council that was led by El - the same name used for God in the Bible. This is not to imply that the Ugaritic understanding of El was the same as the Israelite understanding of El. "The Baal Cycle" is an Ugaritic text and talks about the assembly of the gods, here is one instance (read the full text here):

Then They set face
Toward the Mountain of Night,
Toward the Convocation of the Assembly.
The Gods had not even sat down,
The Deities to dine,
When Baal stood up by El.
The Bible also speaks of an assembly of gods:
God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods.
- Psalm 82:1
These "gods" are also referred to as "sons of God" and we see them assembled in Job as well:
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
- Job 1:6
How many gods were in the Divine Council? The Baal Cycle put them at seventy:
Kothar-u-Kasis goes to the Lady Asherah of the Sea, Mother of the Seventy Gods.
The Bible doesn't say directly how many gods are in the Divine Council, BUT in Genesis 10 and 11, it lists all the nations. How many nations? 70. Who were those nations given to? The gods.
When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.
- Deuteronomy 32:8-9
The Book of Ecclesiasticus echoes this:
For in the division of the nations of the whole earth he set a ruler over every people; but Israel is the Lord's portion
-Ecclesiasticus 17:17
And the Book of Jubilees:
And He sanctified it, and gathered it from amongst all the children of men; for there are many nations and many peoples, and all are His, and over all hath He placed spirits in authority to lead them astray from Him. But over Israel He did not appoint any angel or spirit, for He alone is their ruler, and He will preserve them and require them at the hand of His angels and His spirits, and at the hand of all His powers in order that He may preserve them and bless them, and that they may be His and He may be theirs from henceforth for ever.
- Book of Jubilees 35:21-32 ("Lead them astray from Him" describes the result, not the original purpose of their appointment)
I think this concept makes more sense of the passages in Daniel that talk about the Prince of Persia and the Prince of Greece:
The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days, but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I was left there with the kings of Persia,
- Daniel 10:13

Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I go out, behold, the prince of Greece will come.
- Daniel 10:20
The concept of a Divine Council is probably new to many of you and raises a lot of questions, such as: What other Scripture provides evidence? Doesn't this make the Israelite religion polytheistic? Doesn't the Bible say there is only one God? and where did the Divine Council meet?

These are all good questions and I will point you to the work of Michael Heiser. He has produced a lot of material regarding the Divine Council. Check out here and here.

Bible Teachers. Please. Read This.

Here is a great list of fallacies that can sneak into a word study.

The Root Word Fallacy
The Origin Fallacy
The “Everything” Fallacy
The Lexical Fallacy
The Word-Argument Fallacy
The Authorless Fallacy
The “Webster’s Dictionary” fallacy

Find out the details here

Notes on The Ascension of Isaiah

The Ascension of Isaiah was most likely written from the late 1st century AD to the second half of the 2nd century AD. It is believed almost universally to be a compilation of several texts completed by an unknown Christian scribe. Most of the text is about Isaiah traveling through seven heavens and then watching Christ descend through all seven heavens, disguising himself as he goes as an angel so that the other angels don't recognize him. He is then born as the baby Jesus. You can read the whole text here if you'd like and I've made some notes below:

Beliar (apparently the same as Belial?) is mentioned as the ruler of this world:

2:4 -
And Manasseh turned aside his heart to serve Beliar; for the angel of lawlessness, who is the ruler of this world, is Beliar, whose name is Mantanbuchus. and he delighted in Jerusalem because of Manasseh, and he made him strong in apostatizing (Israel) and in the lawlessness which were spread abroad in Jerusalem.

4:2 -
After it is consummated, Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother: who himself (even) this king.
This of course sounds similar to John 12:31:
Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.
The Ascension of Isaiah also mentions Jesus' descent in to Hades (Sheol in the Hebrew):
4:21 -
And the descent of the Beloved into Sheol, behold, it is written in the section, where the Lord says: "Behold my Son will understand." And all these things, behold they are written [in the Psalms] in the parables of David, the son of Jesse, and in the Proverbs of Solomon his son, and in the words of Korah, and Ethan the Israelite, and in the words of Asaph, and in the rest of the Psalms also which the angel of the Spirit inspired.

4:21 -
And the descent of the Beloved into Sheol, behold, it is written in the section, where the Lord says: "Behold my Son will understand." And all these things, behold they are written [in the Psalms] in the parables of David, the son of Jesse, and in the Proverbs of Solomon his son, and in the words of Korah, and Ethan the Israelite, and in the words of Asaph, and in the rest of the Psalms also which the angel of the Spirit inspired.

10:7-8 -
And I heard the voice of the Most High, the Father of my Lord, saying to my Lord Christ who will be called Jesus: "Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol thou wilt descend, but to Haguel thou wilt not go.
"Haguel" is the bad part of Sheol.
11:19 -
And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, not knowing who He was, and they delivered Him to the king, and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel (of Sheol).
Those passages are along the same lines as some New Testament passages:
1 Peter 3:18-20 -
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.

Acts 2:27 -
For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption.
The Ascension of Isaiah also talks about the third heaven:
7:24-27 -
And he raise me to the third heaven, and in like manner I saw those upon the right and upon the left, and there was a throne there in the midst; but the memorial of this world is there unheard of.

And I said to the angel who was with me; for the glory of my appearance was undergoing transformation as I ascended to each heaven in turn: "Nothing of the vanity of that world is here named."

And he answered me, and said unto me: "Nothing is named on account of its weakness, and nothing is hidden there of what is done."

And I wished to learn how it is know, and he answered me saying: "When I have raised thee to the seventh heaven whence I was sent, to that which is above these, then thou shalt know that there is nothing hidden from the thrones and from those who dwell in the heavens and from the angels. And the praise wherewith they praised and glory of him who sat on the throne was great, and the glory of the angels on the right hand and on the left was beyond that of the heaven which was below them.
I mention this because Paul mentions the third heaven but I'm not sure how or if it's relevant to the quote above:
2 Corinthians 12:2 -
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows.
Some of the passages in The Ascension of Isaiah could be taken as anti-Samaritan, which would be at odds with much of the message of the New Testament:
3:1 -
And Belchira recognized and saw the place of Isaiah and the prophets who were with him; for he dwelt in the region of Bethlehem, and was an adherent of Manasseh. And he prophesied falsely in Jerusalem, and many belonging to Jerusalem were confederate with him, and he was a Samaritan.
Beliar/Belial, and Sammuel/Satan are two separate individuals:
1:8 -
And Sammael Malchira will serve Manasseh, and execute all his desire, and he will become a follower of Beliar rather than of me

3:13 -
For Beliar was in great wrath against Isaiah by reason of the vision, and because of the exposure wherewith he had exposed Sammael, and because through him the going forth of the Beloved from the seventh heaven had been made known, and His transformation and His descent and the likeness into which He should be transformed (that is) the likeness of man, and the persecution wherewith he should be persecuted, and the torturers wherewith the children of Israel should torture Him, and the coming of His twelve disciples, and the teaching, and that He should before the sabbath be crucified upon the tree, and should be crucified together with wicked men, and that He should be buried in the sepulchre,

5:15 -
This, Beliar did to Isaiah through Belchira and Manasseh; for Sammael was very wrathful against Isaiah from the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah, on account of the things which he had seen regarding the Beloved.

Sammel is "a" Satan:
7:9 -
And we ascended to the firmament, I and he, and there I saw Sammael and his hosts, and there was great fighting therein and the angels of Satan were envying one another.

11:41 -
On account of these visions and prophecies Sammael Satan sawed in sunder Isaiah the son of Amoz, the prophet, by the hand of Manasseh.
The terms "Satans"(plural) is used, implying there are multiple Satans:
11:23 -
And I saw Him, and He was in the firmament, but He had not changed Himself into their form, and all the angels of the firmament and the Satans saw Him and they worshipped.

Well Played, Mary, Well Played

What's going on in John 2:4

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
- John 2:1-5
Jesus then goes on to turn water into wine. The conversation between Jesus and his mother, Mary, seems odd, even hostile. It seems that Jesus says no to Mary's request, and then Mary acts like he said yes. However, a look closer will show how the conversation makes more sense. Let's start with the term "woman". Bill Munce writes:
Jesus heals a crippled woman, and says to her, “Woman, you are freed from your disability” (Luke 13:12; ESV). There is no getting around that the fact that the use of “woman” sounds pejorative to our ears, and yet there is nothing pejorative at all in the Greek γύναι. After all, this is what Jesus calls his mother (John 2:4; 19:26). It is the term Jesus uses to address the weeping Mary at the tomb (John 20:15).

Some translations just say “woman” and leave it up to your study to figure out what it really means (NASB, ESV, NIV, HCSB, NRSV, KJV, NET, TEV, NJB). I applaud the NLT for apparently being the only translation that tries to do something about this in their translation, “Dear woman.”
Munce goes on to talk about the difficulty of translating the Greek word into English but that the term was definitely one of endearment.

Next, let's look at the phrase "what have I to do with thee?" Michael Hieser explains the phrase in his blog post:
There is no reason to see John’s use of this idiomatic expression as indicative of irritation, or that his mother had become insufferable to Jesus. When Jesus says to Mary, “What to me to you?”, he isn’t saying “What is it now, lady?” He’s basically asking his mother, who brings a concern to him, “What can I do for you?”
Next, let's look at the phrase "mine hour is not yet come". In the gospels, Jesus heals people but tells them not to tell anyone (Matt. 8:4, Matt. 9:30, Matt. 12:16) and when someone figures out that he is the Christ, he forbids them from telling anyone (Matt. 16:20, Mark 8:30, Luk. 9:21, Matt. 17:9). This is because Jesus didn't want to be glorified publicly until after his Resurrection. So when Jesus tells his mother that his hour had not come, she understands that Jesus cannot do a miracle if it would publicly glorify him. So she thinks of a way for him to do it so that he would not be publicly exposed: through the servants. And it works:
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
-John 2:9
Well played, Mary, well played.

Paula White vs Shai Linne

Christian rap artist Shai Linne recently released a track called Fal$e Teacher$ and he lists Paula White as a false teacher.  Have a listen:


Brad Knight, Paula White's son, responded with an open letter to Shai Linne, which you can read here.  Shai Linne responded with his own open letter, which you can read here.  Both letters were cordial and it was encouraging to see these two parties dialoging.  I hope that Brad will continue the conversation.

The point of this post is not so much to defend Paula White (Being a charismatic, I have had some exposure to her but know little about her teachings), but to critique Shai Linne's arguments. I have posted some excerpts from Linne's letter and made comments below them:

Before I directly address the substance of your open letter, I first want to commend you for a few things that encouraged me as I read it.

1. I was encouraged to read your confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I loved hearing you affirm the blessed Trinity, the deity of Christ, His atoning sacrifice and salvation by grace through faith in Christ. I can’t even type that last sentence without it affecting me. Beautiful truths, indeed! Those truths are the foundation of my hope and joy. My soul leaps when I hear someone affirm these things as you did. Amen and amen.

2. I was encouraged to read of your obvious love for your mother. What son couldn’t relate to the passion behind what you wrote? If someone said anything that I perceived as negative or untrue about my mom, I would be the first to defend her. As a son who dearly loves his own mom, I could identify with you. Thank you for setting a good example for sons out there in stepping up to defend your mother.

3. I was encouraged to hear of your mother praying for your salvation, as well as teaching you the faith. Again, I can relate. I myself am the result of a praying mother. In fact, I once told my mom that I would never become a Christian. Even as I entered adulthood while continuing in rebellion against God, she never stopped praying for me. I am eternally grateful to her for crying out to God on my behalf when I was dead in my sins! So I was glad to hear you mention what you did about your mother. It’s a good model for other mothers to emulate.
I commend Linne for starting out on a positive note and setting a nice tone for his letter.
With that said, Brad, I don’t think your letter actually addresses the real issue. My song was not about you, your financial status, the genuineness of your faith, your mother’s prayers for you or the good things that Paula White Ministries does. The song was about the false doctrine that Paula White and others have publicly taught for many years and continue to teach.
I think it's true that Brad gets off topic but at the same time, there wasn't much substance in Linne's lyrics to respond to, certainly nothing like the precise points he raises in his open letter.
Speaking of public teaching, you mentioned Matthew 18:15-17 to support the idea that I should have contacted you privately first. The irony, of course, is that you made this claim in a letter that is open for the public to read without contacting me privately first. Why did you choose to go about things in this way? Is it because I came out and said something about Paula White publicly and therefore you felt it deserved a public response? If that’s how you thought about it, you would be right. And that’s exactly why I addressed Paula White’s public teachings publicly. Here is a helpful article by noted New Testament scholar D.A. Carson on why Matthew 18 doesn’t apply in situations like this.
Linne makes a great point there and the article by D.A. Carson he points to is excellent.
Paula White did a series called 8 Promises of the Atonement, that at the time of my writing this, is currently featured on your ministry website. In it, she states that physical healing and financial abundance in this life are provided for in the atonement of Christ.
I would have liked to have seen Linne point out White's scriptural basis for that claim and then counter with his own scriptural argument but he gets side tracked by another issue:
She ends this section by boldly declaring around 29:40:

“You are not going to die of sickness. When you go, it’s going to be because of your appointed time of old age and full of life”

For Paula White to say this to a large crowd of people is both false and irresponsible. She has no idea how those people are going to die.
White was not prophesying, but making a declarative statement of faith. It is a different issue and Linne confuses the two.
The truth is that Christians do get sick. Many godly believers die at young ages from sickness and it is not due to their lack of faith or because they haven’t embraced what’s theirs through the atonement. It’s because God is sovereign.

As He says in Deut. 32:39, “‘See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.”

Psalm 139:14 says “All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be”.

God sovereignly determines when we live and when we die. And if He appoints or allows a sickness to take our lives, it is because His infinite wisdom determined that it be so.
Linne takes two verses that deal with particular points and uses them to make a universal point. In Deut. 32:39, God is not saying that He kills everyone. He is showing that He not only has the ability to kill but to give life as well. This ties into the God of Chaos/God of Order issue that Old Testament writers were concerned with. In Psalm 139:39, David is referring to himself and not to everyone in existence. I would have liked to have seen Linne use better verses to show that God is completely sovereign over everything.
Jesus commends the church in Smyrna when He says:

“‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” - Rev. 2:9

In His kindness and care, the risen Savior tells the church in Smyrna that He is aware of their poverty. What does He say after that? Does He tell them that they’re poor because they haven’t fully embraced the promise of His atonement? Does He say they’re poor because of a generational curse, as Paula White teaches at 13:20 in this video? No.
Jesus doesn't tell the church in Smyrna how to defend themselves against slander either, but does that mean that defending yourself against slander is wrong? No. Jesus talks about poverty because the false teachers at the time were saying that those who were poor would have a lesser standing in the Kingdom of God. For Jesus to talk about poverty in any other way within that context would be unusual.
Around 2:10 she says, “God is speaking to many”. She then tells them what God is supposedly saying, “Give a $126 dollar offering. For some it may be $1,260, for some it may be $12,600”.

Now if I’m sitting in that audience that day and Paula White says, “God is saying give $126 or $1,260 or $12,600”, what am I supposed to do? If God is saying it and I don’t do it, I’m being disobedient.
White doesn't say that God said for everyone to give those amounts. She said "many". Also, “God is speaking to many” may have meant she simply knew that God was saying it to many, as opposed to saying it to them for God. In that case, those who didn't hear God say it, wouldn't be required to give it.
As I’m sure you know, Brad, God takes speaking in His name very seriously. To say that God said something that He didn’t say is to lie on God. God takes this sin so seriously that in the Old Testament, the person found guilty of this was to be executed. Check out Deuteronomy 18:20:

“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’”

The verses following that one give the litmus test for how we can determine whether or not someone is speaking for God:

“And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’—when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously.” (Deut. 18:21-22)
Now Linne expands the argument beyond White and encompasses charismatic Christianity on this point. I personally think that Deuteronomy 18:22 is the most difficult verse for charismatic Christians to have to deal will. I don't believe "prophesying in part" is a valid excuse, but at the same time, think Deuteronomy 18:22 is difficult to apply to the gift of prophecy.

Top 5 Bible Teachers

Here are my top five Bible teachers. They're listed in no particular order. I couldn't do a Top 10, because there aren't that many that I really like.

Michael Hieser

He's probably best know for his teachings on the Nephilim but his teachings on The Divine Counsel are really great. He knows the ancient near east languages and cultures and his Naked Bible website is a treasure trove of good info:

The Naked Bible

Craig Keener

I like Craig, not just because his academic work is excellent and his research is top notch but because he is also a charismatic and explores the issues related to the supernatural.

His Bible Background website
Here are some videos of Craig talking about miracles
He's also featured often in the 7 Minute Seminary videos

Walt Russell

Walt teaches at Biola and is well known for his teachings on how "flesh" does not refer to "sinful nature" and how Paul's words in Romans 7 refer to when he did not have Christ. Walt is good at understanding the contexts of Scripture. I would also consider him a charismatic and he has written a book called Playing With Fire.

Here are a number of videos with Walt

D.A. Carson

Don Carson is pretty well known in Evangelical circles. He has a number of books and video you can find online and he contributes regularly to The Gospel Coalition.

The Gospel Coalition

Matt Williams

Matt was one of my professors while at Trinity International University. He's great at explaining Old Testament ties to the New Testament as well as the cultural context of the Bible.

He sometimes blogs here
Video - Do You Remember Who You Are?

He's featured in the Deeper Connection DVD Series:
The Forgiveness of Jesus
The Last Days of Jesus

What does it mean that God owns cattle on a thousand hills?

Craig Keener shows how Psalm 50:10 has more to do with sacrifices than with wealth

Most ancient near Eastern peoples believed that their gods depended on them for sacrifices, and if their gods were overpowered, their nation would be overpowered as well. The God of Israel reminds them that He is not like the pagan gods around them.
Read the rest here

Will gifts like prophecy and tongues pass away?

Yes and No...and not in the same way that Craig Keener thinks

I have a great respect for Craig Keener. He is one of my favorite Bible teachers, but I have to disagree with his explanation of prophecy and tongues passing away - but not his conclusion. I agree with Craig, that those gifts are still operative in the Church today but the reason for it has nothing to do with the fact that Christ has not returned yet.
Paul says that spiritual gifts like prophecy, tongues and knowledge will pass away when we no longer need them (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Some Christians read this passage as if it said, “Spiritual gifts like prophecy, tongues, and knowledge passed away when the last book of the New Testament was written.” This interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13 ignores the entire context of 1 Corinthians, however: it is a letter to the Corinthians in the middle of the first century, and they had never yet heard of a New Testament in the middle of the first century. Had Paul meant the completion of the New Testament, he would have had to have made this point much more clearly–starting by explaining what a New Testament addition to their Bible was.
So far, so good. I can agree with Craig that "passing away" has nothing to do with the completion of the New Testament.
In the context we find instead that Paul means that spiritual gifts will pass away when we know God as He knows us, when we see Him face to face (13:12; when we no longer see as through a mirror as in the present—cf. 2 Cor 3:18, the only other place where Paul uses the term). In other words, spiritual gifts must continue until our Lord Jesus returns at the end of the age.
Here is where we disagree. It is true that the context does not talk about the completion of the New Testament but it also does not talk about the return of Christ. The text doesn't say, "when we see Him face to face". It simply says, "but then face to face". It is here that I believe Paul is talking about relationship with each other in the Church and not with God. The context supports this view, because Paul writes about how the Corinthian church was acting as "parts". Paul is talking about the gifts temporally ceasing so that the Church can operate in greater unity and love. For more details, please read my post on "Why does Paul say that prophecies, tongues, and knowledge will cease?"

Who is the thief who comes to steal and destroy? Not the devil.

Craig Keener on John 10:10

Many people assume that the thief in John 10:10 is the devil, but they assume this because they have heard this view many times, not because they examined the text carefully in context. Of course, the devil does come to steal, to kill, and to destroy; but we often quote the verse this way and miss the text’s direct applications because we have not stopped to read the verse in context.

When Jesus speaks of “the thief,” he speaks from a larger context of thieves, robbers, wolves, and strangers who come to harm the sheep (10:1, 5, 8, 10, 12). In this context, those who came before Jesus, claiming his authority, were thieves and robbers (10:8); these tried to approach the sheep without going through the shepherd (10:1). This was because they wanted to exploit the sheep, whereas Jesus was prepared to die defending his sheep from these thieves, robbers, and wolves.
I must admit that I too thought the "thief" was the devil and I appreciate Craig showing the context for a better understanding. You can read the rest here.

God is a God of Order AND Chaos

Old Testament authors defend both.

Most Christians today probably have a hard time thinking of God as a God of Chaos but during Old Testament times, the problem was the opposite - people had a hard time thinking of God as a God of Order. Why would they think that?

Set Gods of Chaos

Several Ancient Near East cultures had "gods of chaos". Let's take a look at one of them. The Egyptian god called Set was a god of the desert, storms, warfare and foreigners in ancient Egyptian religion and in later myths he is also the god of darkness and chaos.

So God takes a group of foreigners (the Israelites), takes them into the desert where they wander for 40 years, conquers the land of Canaan through warfare, and makes his people kingless. Not only that but:
He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him-- the dark rain clouds of the sky.
- Psalm 18:11
Can you see why some people thought God was a god of chaos? Maybe they even thought specifically He was the Egyptian god because His people came out of Egypt.

Old Testament authors strike back by showing that God controls both chaos and order.
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7
Cosmic Order

The Old Testament makes it a point to show that God created and maintains order at the cosmic level. Many Ancient Near East cultures tell how the world was created out of chaos. The Old Testament is no different and shows that God is the one who conquers chaos to create the world. In Yahweh, Creation, and the Cosmic Battle, Peter Enns writes:
One of the ways the Old Testament describes creation is through a conflict between Yahweh and the sea (or “waters” or one of the sea monsters, Leviathan or Rahab). Sea is a symbol of chaos, and so Yahweh’s victory in the conflict establishes order. He is the creator, the supreme power. Israel’s proper response is awe and praise.
Light and Darkness

Genesis describes God creating light:
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
- Genesis 1:3-4
Exodus explains why God dwells in darkness when visiting earth:
But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
- Exodus 33:20
Societal Order

The Old Testament explains that the Israelites were not kingless, but that God himself was their king:
And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.
- 1 Samuel 8:7
God also establishes His Law among Him people to establish order. If they followed the Law, prosperity would come, if not, destruction would come:
See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
- Deuteronomy 30:15-16
Fertility and Warfare

The reason that the Israelites wandered in the desert was because of their lack of faith (Numbers 14). God was not just God of the desert but God of fertile land too. Deuteronomy makes it clear that when the Israelites followed the Law, their crops would be blessed.
Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your ancestors
- Deuteronomy 30:9
This "god of chaos"/'god of order" issue is closely related to the "god of war"/"god of fertility" issue, which you can read about in my analysis of Psalm 68:18.

Unconditional Covenant Marriage Not Biblical?

The idea of covenant marriage has become popular within Christian circles. Gary Chapman's book "Covenant Marriage" has a lot of good material that is beneficial to marriages. However, he seems to define a covenant relationship as unconditional. I'm not so sure that is the case.

The Marriage Metaphor

First, marriage is used as a metaphor for the covenant God has with Israel. However, the covenant that was established was similar to those established by kings with cities that they had conquered. In fact, God's covenant is similar to treaties made by Hittite kings. The king of the covenant would have a vested interest in keeping the covenant, not because he loved them but because if he lost the city, it would be a loss of his empire and may encourage other cities to revolt. That's what's so great about God's covenant with Israel, in that His relationship with them was unusual, because He really does love Israel.

Covenants are conditional

Covenants can be broken. If they can be broken, then there are conditions for breaking them. They are conditional. The Bible mentions numerous times that Israel broke God's covenant:
Hosea 6:7
Like Adam, they have broken the covenant--they were unfaithful to me there.
God even divorces Israel (the Northern Kingdom):
Jeremiah 3:8
I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.
God revokes his covenant with the nations of the earth
Zechariah 10:11
Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations.

Why stick with a broken covenant?

So covenants can be broken, they are conditional, they can be ended. That's the great thing about God and His covenant with Israel. He maintains his side of the covenant even though it has been broken. He does not choose another people to be His people. This would have been considered unusual. Hosea is a great metaphor. Even though his wife was unfaithful, he did not choose another wife. Why does God stick with the Israelites even after they broke the covenant? Chapman might suggest that it is because of "steadfast" love. God certainly is loving but Scripture suggests a different reason:
Isaiah 48:11
“For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.
It's not because of the covenant that God sticks with them and it's not because of His love, but rather for His own name's sake.

Stop Learning and Start Thinking

From time to time, I've questioned my decision not to go to seminary and pursue a career in academia. Blog posts like Brian LePort's "You’re going to be an adjunct and it is going to be terrible." makes me feel like I've made the right decision.

I recently watched this video of then 11 year old Jason Barnett's "Forget What You Know". The more I think about it, the more powerful I think it is. He talks about, not only himself, but also how Isaac Newton stopped going to Cambridge because of The Plague. It was during that time that he developed some of his best work - because he stopped learning and started thinking. I've found this to be true in my Biblical studies as well.

What does "Abraham's Bosom" mean?

Michael Patton recently posted on "Where Did Old Testament Saints Think They Went When They Died?".   I responded here. Patton's post sparked some discussion in the comments section about "Abraham's Bosom". A phrase found in Luke 16:22:

Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried
The discussion led me to Patton's post The Myth of “Abraham’s Bosom”. Patton sees that phrase as relational and not as a place. I agree but I don't think that necessitates a 2 part Hades doesn't/didn't exist. I would like to expand on the idea of "Abraham's Bosom" as being relational. The phrase is also found in the ancient Book of Jubilees:
Book of Jubilees 22:26
And the two lay together on one bed, and Jacob slept in the bosom of Abraham, his father's father and he kissed him seven times, and his affection and his heart rejoiced over him.

Book of Jubilees 23:1-2
And he placed two fingers of Jacob on his eyes, and he blessed the God of gods, and he covered his face and stretched out his feet and slept the sleep of eternity, and was gathered to his fathers. And notwithstanding all this Jacob was lying in his bosom, and knew not that Abraham, his father's father, was dead.
Closing the eyes of a dead father, was the privilege of the first-born son. By having Jacob close his eyes when he died, Abraham is declaring Jacob as his firstborn. This has implications for inheritance as the first-born son received a double portion of inheritance.

I think it is likely that Luke's readers were familiar with this story and recognized that Jesus was saying something about Lazarus' relationship to Abraham and possibly suggesting that Lazarus would receive an inheritance at the end of the age.

The phrase "sleep of eternity" is also used in the Book of Jubilees. Does this support the idea of soul sleep? The phrase "gathered to his fathers" is also used. Gathered where? Does this support the idea of a conscious afterlife?

Where Did Old Testament Saints Think They Went When They Died?

Michael Patton asks that question over at Parchment and Pen. He lays out the Biblical basis for believers going to heaven after they die but then adds:

However, it does not seem to be the case with Old Testament believers. They present themselves as those who fear death a great deal more than most of us are comfortable with. In fact, in some cases, it looks like they don’t believe in heaven at all.
He then lays out a number of O.T. verses that he feels supports that view, such as Psalm 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who will give you praise?
He then offers three options of how to deal with it:
  1. There is no intermediate state
  2. Old Testament believes did believe in a conscious intermediate state
  3. Old Testament believers did not believe in a conscious intermediate state, but this does not mean that there is not one
I would choose #2. Here's why:

Patton (and others) understands "Sheol" as meaning "death/grave" but Sheol was thought of as the place of the dead. Everyone went there, even if they were an Old Testament saint. It was understood to be under the earth. Other ancient near east texts support this idea of an underworld and Old Testament writers make no attempt to correct this idea. Translators of the Septuagint translate the world "Sheol" as "Hades" and Hades was thought of as an underworld place of the dead. I should note that Hades is not the same as what we think of as hell today.

Samuel seems to be in an intermediate state when the Witch of Endor brings him up "out of the earth" (1Sam 28). This would conform with the idea of an underworld.

New Testament writers also agree that Old Testament saints did not go to heaven:
John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

Acts 2:34
For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand
However, this all changes when Christ dies. Christ releases the saints from Sheol/Hades when he ascends to heaven. The "Gates of Hades" would not prevail as it were (Mat 16:18). At this point all future saints ascend to heaven at death and we come into alignment of Patton's understanding of the afterlife.

Questions in John 1

Brian Leport at Near Emmaus asks some good questions regarding elements of John Chapter 1. Brian writes:

Moses is part of the discussion in John 1. In 1:14 the Logos/Word becomes flesh (σὰρξ ἐγένετο), tabernacles among “us” (Israel? Humanity? ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν), and he seen by the author(s) of the Prologue. John the Baptist is cited as a witness toward Jesus’ exalted status. The community adds their witness as having received Jesus’ “fullness” of grace. Then the author(s) says that Moses gave the Law, but Jesus the Messiah brought grace (ἡ χάρις) and truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια). Does this mean Moses did not bring grace and truth? Is the first part of that combination in need of emphasis, i.e., Moses did bring truth, but not grace?
Although it is true that Moses is mentioned in Chapter 1, I don't think the emphasis is on him. In other Scriptures (1 John 4:12, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16) that talk about not seeing God, there is no mention of Moses and so I think the context is larger than Moses. If John is writing to correct false teachings, then this would imply that someone in the Church at that time was claiming they had seen God. This is the context that we should read verse 18 in. This could tie in with the idea of two Christs, which John rejects by referring to the other Christ as the antichrist.

Furthermore, Moses did bring grace (I prefer the word "favor") but it was favor limited to the Jews. Only the Jews were God's people. Jesus also brought favor and he brought it for the Gentiles too. The emphasis should be on the second part: truth. No one was denying that Jesus brought favor for everyone, but there is evidence that there were those that were saying that Jesus was lying about it. That's why Jesus often says "Truly, truly" or "I tell you the truth".