BibleProject

Tim and Jon respond to several questions, listed below. Isaiah from Georgia (1:40): Hey Jon and Tim! My name is Isaiah and I am from Lawrenceville, Georgia. I have a question concerning biblical law and God's nature. I've talked to some friends on this issue for some time, and their view is that God's nature was not fully revealed in the Old Testament. So God's will was not fully revealed. They believe this is why the Israelites thought they had to live under the law. They use Paul's writings to back that up. They also believe that the New Testament is the full revelation of God and his nature. And so we can see his full intent was to have a personal relationship instead of a list of rules to follow. What would you say to this worldview and why it should be changed? Rich from New York (13:10): I'm a pastor in upstate New York. Your series on the law is just outstanding. And yet I have a question. As you folks talked about the common law understanding of law that existed until the last few centuries, I found myself wondering about the understanding of law among the Pharisees of the first century, for example. It seems that their understanding wasn't just that the mosaic law was a snapshot in time but that it described how the law needed to be lived out in any age, whatever possible, more like statutory law. Or am I wrong about that? Victoria from Tennessee (21:45): Hey Tim and Jon, this is Victoria in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I've been really inspired by this conversation about the law, particularly the relationships of the New Testament to the Old Testament. I'm sure you're getting here, but I wanted to ask how we’re asked to understand our broad call to obedience when Jesus says something like in Matthew 5, “therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” What commands is he referring to, and is the spirit of the law or commands a filter for interpretation, or is there a place where we need to draw a line in the sand? Thanks. Joe from Cleveland (22:15): What I’m still at tension with are Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:18-19 where he states not a dot or iota will pass away from the law, and those who relax the least of these will be least in heaven. It seems we had agreed the Hebrew Torah showed itself to be flexible and not necessarily the final word in judicial cases. I interpret Jesus “dot and iota” statement as a more literal or explicit command to the letter of the law so to speak. Does Jesus’ statement raise that tension for you or is there another way of understanding it? Petra from the Netherlands (39:30): Hi Tim and Jon my name is Petra, I'm from the Netherlands. A lot of people consider the law as a guidance to obey God and to eternal life. As I have listened to your podcast, I get the assumption that you do not agree with that way of seeing the law, which I understand. What are your thoughts about a practical way to obey God through the Holy Spirit, by the Law, what are your thoughts about that? Thank you, bye! Laura from Iowa: (47:20) Is it important to differentiate between passages that are referring to the 611 laws, the Torah, the whole Old Testament, or the entirety of Scripture? And if that's important, how can an average Bible reader go about this? Show Music: Defender Instrumental by Tents Show Produced by: Dan Gummel Check out all our resources at www.thebibleproject.com Our video on how to read biblical law: https://youtu.be/Sew1kBIe-W0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In part one (0:00-25:30), the guys discuss the series so far, and Tim dives into the final two perspectives to keep in mind when reading biblical law. The fifth perspective is that the purpose of the covenant laws is fulfilled in Jesus and the Spirit. The dual role of the laws––to condemn and to point the way to true life––is fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and in the coming of the Spirit to Jesus’ new covenant people. Jesus was the first obedient human and the faithful Israelite who fulfilled the law yet bore the curse of humanity's punishment so that others could have life and the status of covenant righteousness. Tim references Matthew 5:17-20: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Tim notes that Jesus is the embodiment of the point of the law, the ideal person who doesn’t need the law because they are abiding with Yahweh by nature. In part two (25:30-35:00), Tim asks who or what is being punished on the cross. Tim references Romans 8:3: “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Tim notes that Paul doesn’t mean that God hated humanity and punished Jesus instead of punishing humanity. Instead, God loved humanity in its weakness and failure and punished sin and condemned sin through Jesus dying on the cross. Tim notes that Paul thinks of sin as a cosmic tyrant. It's not just an individual problem, but a problem of essential mode existence for the world. The law, or divine command, was supposed to be an opportunity for humans to realize their true calling of acting in God’s image voluntarily. Instead, we chose and choose to disobey and now live “enslaved” to our decision(s). In part three (35:00-end), Tim discusses the last perspective: The laws are a source of wisdom for all generations. The Torah is viewed as a source of wisdom within the Hebrew Bible The tree of knowing good and evil is the pathway to the tree of life. In Proverbs, learning wisdom is the pathway to the tree of life. Tim uses the following proverbs to illustrate his point. Proverbs 1:7: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowing; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 3:13, 18: "How blessed is the man who finds wisdom And the man who gains understanding. She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, And happy are all who hold her fast." Proverbs 15:3-4: "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, Watching the evil and the good. A soothing tongue is a tree of life, But perversion in it crushes the spirit. Tim notes that Wisdom is the way to fulfill the Shema." Proverbs 6:20-23: "My son, keep the commandment of your father And do not forsake the instruction of your mother; Bind them continually on your heart; Tie them around your neck. When you walk about, they will guide you; When you sleep, they will watch over you; And when you awake, they will talk to you." Time compares the preceding passage with Deuteronomy 6:4-8: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." Tim notes that these two passages mirror each other, as they teach that acting wisely fulfills the law. Tim then discusses the apostle Paul to show how he continued to use the laws as wisdom literature. 1 Corinthians 9:9-12: "For it is written in the Law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.' God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share the right over you, d

In part 1 (0-17:00), The guys quickly recap their conversation so far. Tim then dives into a third perspective on the Hebrew laws in the Old Testament. The third perspective is that the laws embody and revolutionize ancient Eastern conceptions of justice. The laws are formulated in the language and categories of ancient Near Eastern law, so that Israel’s law was comprehensible to their neighbors while also representing an irreversible cultural revolution. Tim notes that in all the other ancient covenant documents (Hittite, Assyrian) only one is between a king and a people, while dozens of others are between one king and another king. Covenants are agreements between kings. But the Biblical story depicts the laws as stipulations between God and all the Israelites: “I will be their God and they will be my people.” This is the same kind of language we find in the Song of Solomon, “I am my beloved’s and he is mine” (Song of Solomon 6:3). This is marriage covenant language. Tim uses some quotes from Joshua Berman to make his points. “In the ancient near east, various gods had consorts and goddess wives, while the common man was subject, a slave and servant of the king and the tribute-imposing class. For these cultures to conceive of the marriage between a god and a group of humans, would have been as unthinkable as for us to imagine the marital union of a human and a cat… The Bible’s most revolutionary idea… is the idea of God as a personality who seeks a relationship of mutuality with human agents. In the neighboring cultures of the ancient Near East, humans were merely slaves of the king. In the Bible, they are transformed into a servant king who is married to a generous sovereign, a wife in relation to her benefactor husband. When God seeks “love” from Israel, it involves both the political sense of loyalty between parties to a treaty as well as the kind of intimacy known in a faithful, intimate relationship between a man and woman.” (Berman, Created Equal, 46) This concept of a human family married to God is founded on the concept of humanity in Genesis 1-2. All humanity, male and female, is the divine royal image over all creation. And while the Davidic king could be called the “son of God,” it was only as the representative of all Israel who is the “son of God” (Exodus 4:22). The king and all the Israelites are themselves equals under their “divine king” Yahweh. Tim again cites Joshua Berman: “While in Egypt and Mesopotamia, the bridge figure between the divine and human was the king, deified (as in Egypt) or more of a demi-god (Mesopotamia). He was the top of the socio-religious structure with the economic elite, and this was mirrored by the hierarchy of the gods. NOT SO in biblical Israel. God’s covenant was with the entirety of Israel, focused on the “common man.” I maintain that it is in the covenant, properly conceived in in ancient Near Eastern setting, that we may discern a radically new understanding of the cosmic role of the common man within the thought systems of the ancient Near East, one that constituted the basis of an egalitarian order.” (Berman, Created Equal, 29) In part 2 (17:00-25:15), Tim explains why Israel’s law codes consistently downgrades the role of the king in contrast to their neighbors. The king is not the sole, chief, divine authority; rather, Yahweh is king, and the human king is subservient to the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 17) and to prophets who speak on Yahweh’s behalf. He is a leader in war, but he is not the chief. He can participate in the temple, but he is not the high priest. He is subservient to the law, but he is not the lawgiver. This is all in contrast to Egypt and Babylon. Tim also explains that the laws allowed Israel’s economy to be oriented toward landed families, which were called to include the immigrant, poor, and orphans. It is the first ancient example of “welfare society.” You can see examples of laws about not maximizing profit to allow work in the fields in Ruth chapters 2-3. Other examples include laws about the seven year debt release, Jubilee land and debt release, not charging interest on loans for the poor, giving a tithe for local loans for failing farmers. Tim again cites Berman: “The biblical laws about land and assets introduce a reformation of the ancient worldview aimed at achieving a social equality, but of a very specific king. It is not the egalitarianism developed since the French Revolution with its emphasis on the individual and inalienable human rights… Rather, it takes the form of an economic system that seeks equality by granting sacred value to the extended family household, where people assist one another in farming labor and in granting relief to other households in need. Ancient Israel was a tribal association of free farmers and ranchers, living in a single and equal social class with common ownership of the means of production. This system was a rejection of statism (= the nations state owns all land) and feudalism (= military l

In this show, Tim and Jon sit down with Dr. Matthew Croasmun. Dr. Croasmun is Associate Research Scholar and Director of the Life Worth Living Program at the Yale Center for Faith & Culture as well as Lecturer of Divinity and Humanities at Yale University. He completed his Ph.D. in Religious Studies (New Testament) at Yale in 2014 and was a recipient of the 2015 Manfred Lautenschläger Award for Theological Promise for his dissertation, "The Body of Sin: An Emergent Account of Sin as a Cosmic Power in Romans 5-8." He discusses his new book, The Emergence of Sin. It was a resource that Tim drew on heavily as he wrote and prepared for The Bible Project’s Spiritual Beings video series. Part 1 of the episode (0-53:15) is the interview with Dr. Croasmun. Dr. Croasmun discusses some of the highlights of scientific research, theology, and philosophy, pointing out how they overlap. Dr. Croasmun also discusses dualism and reductionism. Tim and Dr. Croasmun briefly touch on the nature of reality. Then they dive into a discussion on the nature of sin. What is the exact nature of sin or of evil? Dr. Croasmun uses a few examples from nature, including the example of a bee and beehive. He posits the idea of sin or evil as a “super organism.” That is to say, not only do humans “sin” individually, but we are members of larger sin structures and systems. These are systems that create death and pain in the world. Dr. Croasmun shares Romans 6:6 (New American Standard Bible): “knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin.” Dr. Croasmun asks what Paul means by this phrase, “the body of sin.” Or does Paul have multiple meanings in mind? Tim notes that C.S. Lewis and other writers have spoken of sin as a “parasite on the good,” meaning that sin does not exist on its own but always exists as a distortion of the good. Instead of people having total autonomy over their lives, Dr. Croasmun notes, they are always in service to something. We are either in service to systems of sin or to systems under Christ. The systems of sin would be examples of rampant, violent nationalism, racism, or discrimination against vulnerable people, animals, and nature. Dr. Croasmun shares that it’s important to think of sin on three levels: an individual level, a large, super-organism and corporate level, and on a cosmic, supernatural level. All three ways will help a person to more fully understand these issues. In part 2 (53:15-end), Tim and Jon recap their conversation with Dr. Croasmun. Tim says that all theologians are in a constant state of forming and reforming their ideas. He adds that sometimes, in our quest to simplify things, we actually do reality a disservice. Reality is complex, and so are the ideas surrounding God, man, nature, good, and evil. Thank you to all our supporters! Show Resources: Dr. Croasmun’s book: The Emergence of Sin Show Music: “Excellent Instrumental” by Propaganda “Defender Instrumental” by Tents Show produced by: Dan Gummel Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In part 1 (0-21:30), the guys recap their conversation so far. Jon says that often the law is the first place people go who look to take issue with the Bible, saying it’s archaic or barbaric. Tim points out that too often, we don’t understand how cross-cultural it is to read the Bible. Instead, we often impose our own cultural mindset on the Bible. Jon recalls from their discussion that the ancient law code of Israel was not the supreme authority, but instead illustrative of the relationships between the parties involved. In part 2 (21:30-26:30), Tim talks about the wisdom of the laws in the Hebrew Scriptures. Tim shares this quote: “The Hebrew Bible strongly suggests that the earliest forms of disputes… were resolved… by intuitions of justice against a background of custom, rather than appeal to formulated rules. The biblical sources which talk about the establishment of the judicial system in Israel give no indication that judges were to use written sources. Rather, judges are urged to avoid partiality and corruption and to ‘do justice.’ But what was the source of such justice? The version attributed to king Jehoshaphat is the most explicit, ‘God is with you in giving judgment’ (2 Chronicles 19:6). Divine inspiration is also attributed to the king in rendering judgment: Proverbs 16:10, ‘Inspired decisions are on the lips of a king; his mouth does not sin in judgment.’ Solomon’s judgment (1 Kings 3:16-28) is presented as an example of just such a process…. This is not to say that judges were expected to go into some kind of trance or function as an oracle. Rather, they were called to operate by combining local custom with divinely guided intuitions of justice…relying on the ‘practical wisdom’ that existed within the social consciousness of the people as a whole.” (Bernard Jackson, Wisdom Laws, 30-31) In part 3 (26:30-40:30), Tim says the laws embody a set of ideals. Laws related to similar topics work together as a symbolic ritual system. They embody a set of ethical, social, and theological ideals for God’s ancient covenant people, “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” living out the Garden-of-Eden ideal in the world. He shares five ideal “buckets” or categories to help readers understand different laws: Ritual Calendar: The 7-day Sabbath cycle is all about the anticipation and re-enactment of new creation (note the literary design of the days in Genesis 1: There is no end to the seventh day). Ritual sacrifices: sacrifices involved offering the life of a blameless representative who would “ascend” to the heavenly mountain on behalf of the offerer (Leviticus 1 begins with the “‘olah” or “ascent” offering) Ritual holiness: symbolic purity boundaries embodied the conviction that God’s presence is the source of all life, and health is separate from the mortal and immoral Civil law: creating a new-creation community structured to carry the poor and prevent injustice toward the vulnerable Criminal law: zero tolerance for those who corrupt the holy covenant family: no blood feuds, theft, idolatry, or sexual behavior that disrupts the social web In part 4 (40:30-end), Tim goes over the sacrifices in the “ritual sacrifices” bucket. He cites a book by Michael Morales called Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord? A biblical theology of Leviticus. Tim also goes over civil and criminal laws in ancient Israel. Jon asks Tim for a few specific examples. Tim goes to these passages: Deuteronomy 24:21-22 “21 When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.” Deuteronomy 25:1-4 “1 When people have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. 2 If the guilty person deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make them lie down and have them flogged in his presence with the number of lashes the crime deserves, 3 but the judge must not impose more than forty lashes. If the guilty party is flogged more than that, your fellow Israelite will be degraded in your eyes 4 Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Deuteronomy 25:11-15 “11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.” “13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.” Tim admits that these laws are very hard to understand. He points out that there are no narratives of these laws actually being put into practice. Regarding verse

In part 1 (0-21:00), Tim points out that the laws are not a “law code” but terms of a covenant relationship. The laws are not a “constitutional code” (i.e. a divine behavior manual) dropped from heaven. Rather, they illustrate the official terms of the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the people of ancient Israel. The 613 laws all fall within the ceremony of God’s covenant with Israel in Exodus 19-24. Tim asks the question: If these laws aren’t a judicial code, then what are they? The laws are the shared agreement between God and Israel that was put forth in their covenant ceremony. We witness this relationship between Israel and Yahweh, Tim shares, as outsiders. People today were not at Mt. Sinai when the covenant was ratified. Instead, the law is used as “torah” for us, or “instruction,” meaning they reveal more about ourselves and God and the human condition. The Torah, Tim says, is a narrative about a covenant relationship, not a law code. He points out that there would have inevitably been more rules and laws governing ancient Israel than the 613 laws included in the Bible. In part 2 (21:00-26:00), Tim expresses how the law served as “relational authority” between Israel and God. The laws served as a witness to Israel’s difference from other kingdoms, that they were a “kingdom of priests” who all had a relationship with God. Ancient Law: Examples from History In part 3, (26:00-41:30) Tim explains that to best understand the ancient laws of Israel, one should also understand how other ancient laws worked. Tim brings up the Code of Hammurabi, the most well known ancient law code. Tim shares the start of the law code of Hammurabi: “When lofty Anum, king of the Anunnaki and Enlil, lord of heaven and earth, the determiner of the destinies of the land, determined for Marduk, the first-born of Enki, 6 the Enlil supreme powers over all mankind, made him great among the Igigi, called Babylon by its exalted name, He made it supreme in the world, established for him in its midst an enduring kingship, whose foundations are as firm as heaven and earth— “at that time Anum and Enlil named me to promote the welfare of the people, me, Hammurabi, the devout, god-fearing prince, to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, that the strong might not oppress the weak, to rise like the sun over humankind, and to light up the land. “Hammurabi, the shepherd, called by Enlil, am I; the one who makes affluence and plenty abound; the one who relaid the foundations of Sippar; who decked with green the chapels of Aya; the designer of the temple of Ebabbar, which is like a heavenly dwelling. “When the god Marduk commanded me to provide just ways for the people of the land (in order to attain) appropriate behavior, I established truth and justice as the declaration of the land, I enhanced the well-being of the people.” The Epilogue and Prologue to the Law Code [From Martha Tobi Roth, Harry A. Hoffner, and Piotr Michalowski, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor] Here are a few laws in the code of Hammurabi: #196: "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one gold mina. If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price." #250 (xliv 44–51) “If an ox gores to death a man while it is passing through the streets, that case has no basis for a claim.” #251 (xliv 52–65) “If a man’s ox is a known gorer, and the authorities of his city quarter notify him that it is a known gorer, but he does not blunt(?) its horns or control his ox, and that ox gores to death a member of the awīlu-class, he (the owner) shall give 30 shekels of silver.” Here is the epilogue of the law: “May any king who will appear in the land in the future, at any time, observe the pronouncements of justice that I inscribed upon my stela. May he not alter the judgments that I rendered and the verdicts that I gave, nor remove my engraved image. If that man has discernment, and is capable of providing just ways for his land, may he heed the pronouncements I have inscribed upon my stela.” The Epilogue and Prologue to the Law Code [From Martha Tobi Roth, Harry A. Hoffner, and Piotr Michalowski, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor] Tim brings up some interesting observations, puzzles and problems that ancient laws present. This code is one of the most frequently copied texts from the ancient world, copies ranging over 1500yrs, and yet, as he quotes: “Of the many thousands of Mesopotamian legal documents in our possession, not one of them cites the Code of Hammurabi, or any other ‘code’ as a source of authority. This in spite of the fact that the code of Hammurabi was esteemed and recopied for more than a millennium. All of this suggests that ancient near eastern law codes were of a literary, educa

Welcome to our first episode looking at laws in the Bible! In part 1 (0-4:00), Tim explains how this set of conversations will be different than the previous podcast episodes that looked at biblical law (the first two episodes of this podcast). In parts 2 and 3 (4:00-17:45 and 17:45-35:00), Tim and Jon discuss ancient law vs. modern law. They talk about the importance of biblical law, but how these laws often cause hang-ups for modern readers. Tim notes that for centuries, interpreting biblical law has been a major point of debate among Christians, Jews, and everyone else. In part 4 (35:00-end), Tim explains a debate over the number of laws in the Old Testament Torah. Some say there are 611 commands; others say 613. So which is it? This is one small but significant example that illustrates how important interpreting the law was in Israel. Here’s a glimpse into the debate to give you a fuller picture. A few centuries after Jesus, rabbis still firmly held to both views. The main disagreement came down to two passages where a commandment could be implicitly read. Consider: Exodus 20:1, “I am Yahweh your God” = Believe that Yahweh exists. Deuteronomy 6:5, “Yahweh your God, Yahweh is one” = Believe that Yahweh is one. Yet even though the number of laws in the Torah can be debated, early rabbis recognized the ability to “reduce” many laws to just a handful that fully captured the spirit of the law. A famous passage illustrates this in the Babylonian Talmud (one of the primary sources for interpreting Jewish religious law and theology). It states: Six hundred and thirteen commandments were given to Moses. David reduced those commandments to eleven. (Psalm 15) Isaiah reduced them to six. (Isaiah 33:15-16) Micah the prophet reduced them to three. (Micah 6:8) Isaiah again reduced them to two. (Isaiah 56:1) Amos reduced them to one. (Amos 5:4) Habakkuk further reduces to say, “But the righteous shall live by his faith.” (Habakkuk 2:4) Throughout the episode, Tim highlights differences in the law. For example, Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 (both presenting the Ten Commandments) talk about the Sabbath in slightly different ways. Or consider another instance, where Moses gives two different commands about how to prepare the Passover. Should you roast it or boil it? According to Exodus 12:8-9, you should roast it and not boil it. But in Deuteronomy 16:6-7, Moses tells the people to boil it. These problems we see in the law are more than just ancient interpretation. To modern readers, some of the laws seem noble and inspiring, while others seem odd, primitive, or even barbaric. We encounter all three of these examples in two adjacent chapters in the Torah: In Leviticus 19, we read about God’s command to leave the extra gleanings of the harvest for the needy and stranger. God shows his care for the least of these. A few verses later, we find laws about tattoos and beard etiquette. Weird! One chapter later, we read the command that “a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:27) Now these laws leave us feeling a tension around how to understand the idea of “biblical authority.” What does obedience to the laws of the Torah mean? Do we obey all of them, some of them, or none of them? This issue has caused many conflicts in both Jewish and Christian history. For example, what is a Jew supposed to do about sacrificial ritual laws when the temple is destroyed in 586 B.C.? Or for a follower of Jesus, how do these laws relate to us as the messianic new covenant family? We see that Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17) So what can Paul mean when he says, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4) Yet Paul still quotes from the Ten Commandments in places like Ephesians 6:1-3. Overall, Tim makes the case that the law presented to us in the Old Testament is not a “code” in the same way modern readers often think of a law code. Instead, we see how Moses, the prophets, Paul, and even Jesus handled the laws. Each held a deep respect for the underlying meaning and ideals presented by the law to the people of God. Though times and customs changed, God’s law served as a bedrock of guiding ideals to help the people of God (both then and now) live in such a way as to love God and love neighbor. Thank you to all our supporters! Visit our website: thebibleproject.com Show Produced by: Dan Gummel Show Music: Defender Instrumental: Tents Pilgrim Instrumental Roads by LiQWYD Skydive Loxbeats Show Resources: Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 17a (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 120–122. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to Episode 2 in our series on How to Read the Prophets. In the introduction, Tim says that the books of the prophets can be set up in different ways, but in most cases they are anthologies. These are the greatest hits or most important points of the prophets. There are five parts to this episode where Tim outlines several buckets or themes that are important to understand when reading the prophets. (6:00-25:00) Introduction (25:00-33:00) Bucket 1: Accusations (33:00-37:00) Bucket 2: Repentance (37:00-52:00) Bucket 3: Day of the Lord Announcements (52:00-end) Conclusion Biblical prophecy frequently deals with the following themes: Accusations that Israel and the nations have rebelled against Yahweh. Israel/Judah has (1) broken the covenant, (2) worshiped other gods, (3) allowed social injustice, and (4) made alliances with the foreign nations. The covenant lawsuit is the key rhetorical device. And the key metaphor is idolatry as adultery. So the nations are accused of injustice, cruelty, and arrogance. A second bucket or theme is the calls for repentance and admonition to turn from wicked ways and return to faithful obedience to Yahweh. The prophets call for religious devotion to Yahweh alone and no other gods. They also call for social justice and care for the most vulnerable (widow, orphan, immigrant). The third theme is the announcements of the Day of the Lord that will address injustice and rebellion. This refers to historical events that God will use to judge evil and vindicate the righteous, all leading up to the great future day when God will do this for all creation—a cosmic “house-cleaning.” The bad news the prophets deliver is that Yahweh will bring his justice against human rebellion. Because of human hard-heartedness, future punishment becomes inevitable. The punishment will be upon Israel and Judah, resulting in disaster, defeat, and exile upon individual nations (especially Assyrian, Babylon, Egypt) and upon all nations. The good news is that Yahweh will bring about the restoration of his covenant people on the other side of exile. This is a hope for a righteous remnant. The prophets say that God will preserve a faithful remnant, an important minority who remain faithful. There is hope for restoration from exile (captivity), and God will restore their “fortunes.” Finally, there is hope for a new covenant. Yahweh will renew his covenant with his people. The prophets say that the Kingdom of God will appear and Yahweh will establish his peaceful, universal Kingdom over all nations, ruled by the future messianic King. They use the imagery of a new temple, new Eden, and new Jerusalem to represent God’s personal presence that will permeate his people in a new cosmic temple. Helpful tips: How to Read the Prophets Look at the first sentence of the book to see when the prophet lived, then go read the corresponding section of 1-2 Kings to get the context of the prophet’s day. Pay attention to the three main themes and how they connect to the book’s design. Some prophets put all their poems of accusation together (as in Ezekiel 3-24), while others weave poems of accusation and of future hope together (see Isaiah 1-2). These books are mostly poetry, so read slowly and thoughtfully. They use tons of metaphors, so pay attention to repeated words and images. Isaiah uses metaphors from the plant world more than any other prophet (vines, trees, branches, stumps, flowers, grass) and often in creative ways to make different points (See Isaiah 11). Key Insights from the prophets: God loves justice. Israel had been called to a higher level of justice than the nations around them, especially in the treatment of their land and the poor (See Isaiah 1:10-20). God gets angry at evil. The prophets give a lot of space to God’s exposure of evil among Israel and the nations. It’s intense, but it reveals how much God cares about the goodness of his world (see Hosea 13). God has hope for our world. He refuses to let Israel’s sin get the last word, and so all the prophetic books contain profound images of future hope and restoration for God’s people and for the entire world (see Isaiah 11:1-9). Show Produced by: Dan Gummel Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Moonlight Sonata, Beethoven Look, KV Ocean, KV Saturdays, Lakey Inspired Yesterday on Repeat, Vexento Resources: Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Prophets by J. Gordon McConville The Prophets by Abraham Heschel The NIV Compact Bible Commentary by John Sailhamer Read the Bible for a Change by Ray Lubeck Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The books of the prophets are often the most difficult and misunderstood books in the Bible. In part one (0:00-10:00), Tim and Jon briefly go over a few reasons why reading the prophets can be so challenging. Tim shares quotes from Martin Luther and fJohn Bright: The challenge of reading the prophetic books: “The prophets have an odd way of talking, like people who, instead of proceeding in an orderly manner, ramble off from one thing to the next, so that you cannot make head or tail of them or see what they are getting at.” Martin Luther, quoted in Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 33. “What makes the prophetic books particularly, and one might say needlessly, difficult is the very manner of their arrangement — or, to be more accurate, their apparent lack of arrangement… All seems confusion… The impression that the reader gains is one of extreme disarray; one can scarcely blame him for concluding that he is reading a hopeless hodgepodge thrown together without any discernible principle of arrangement at all.” — John Bright, Jeremiah (Anchor Bible Commentary, 1965), p. lvi. In part two (10:00-18:40), Tim asks Jon what he thinks a modern definition of prophets and prophecy is. Jon says he believes it has to do with fortune telling. A prophet is someone who can look into the future and predict an event. Tim explains that while this is part of the role of a prophet, it is not the central focus, and predicting future events only occurs occasionally in the Bible. Tim explains that the definition of a prophet in the Old Testament is actually very simple. A prophet is simply a messenger or a herald giving a message to people on God’s behalf. Tim says that most people understand the term prophecy as the prediction of future events. This definition is inadequate and does not account for the huge amounts of the material in the prophetic books. While there are certain passages within the prophets which do contain predictive elements, most of these poems and narratives don’t present themselves as predictive prophecy. In the Bible, a prophecy is a message that God speaks to his people through a human prophet. So prophecies often contain the quoted speech of God himself. Jeremiah 2:1-2: Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord: “I remember concerning you the devotion of your youth…” In part three (18:40-33:30), Tim outlines the character of Moses. Moses is portrayed as the archetypal prophet. He’s the first divine spokesmen sent to Israel and the nations (Exodus 3). He’s the first figure to mediate between Yahweh and Israel and establish his covenant with the people (Exodus 19-24, the Sinai narrative). He’s the only figure allowed to enter the divine presence directly (Exodus 19-20, 33-34). He’s the key intercessor for Israel when they have violated the covenant (Exodus 32-34). He suffers because of Israel’s failures (Numbers 11-21) and accuses them of present and ongoing rebellion against Yahweh that will result in exile (Deuteronomy 28-32). And his death is marked as the end of an era. “Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face…” (Deuteronomy 34:10). Tim says that Moses fails as a prophet. But in the Pentateuch, he is cast as the ideal prophet, someone whom all other Jewish prophets should follow after. In part four (33:30-end), Tim says the prophets are best understood as “covenant watchdogs.” They assume the larger covenant story of Yahweh, creation, and Israel. Yahweh is the creator and King, and his image-bearing stewards have rebelled and corrupted his good world (Genesis 1–11). In the covenant he makes with Abraham, Yahweh says he will use Abraham’s family to restore his divine blessing to all nations (Genesis 12). In the covenant with Israel (the Sinai or Mosaic covenant), Israel is called to become a kingdom of priests to the nations by adhering to the laws of the covenant. Obedience will result in covenant blessing, and rebellion will bring covenant curses (Exod 19, Lev 26, Deut 28–30). In the covenant with Israel’s priesthood, Yahweh promises to provide a perpetual priesthood through the line of Aaron to intercede on Israel’s behalf and atone for their covenant failures (Numbers 25). The covenant with Israel’s monarchy states that Yahweh will raise up a king from the line of David who will bring God’s Kingdom and blessing to all the nations (2 Samuel 7, Psalms 2, 72, 89, 132). Israel was unable to fulfill its side of the Sinai covenant and was sent into exile. But in the new covenant, Yahweh will transform their hearts so they can truly love and obey their God (Deuteronomy 30, Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36). Thank you to all of our supporters! Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Music Defender Instrumental, Tents Mind Your Time, Me.So Morning, LiQwyd Erhrling, Typhoon Show Resources: Martin Luther, quoted in Gerhard von Rad, Old Testa

Welcome to a special episode of our podcast. In this episode, Tim and Jon interview the prolific theologian N.T. (Tom) Wright. They discuss Paul’s perspectives of spiritual evil and spiritual powers. Thank you to all of our supporters! Show Produced by: Dan Gummel Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Mind Your Time, Me.So Show Resources: www.ntwrightonline.org www.thebibleproject.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In part 1, (0-11:40) Tim notes the ways that Luke has mapped the story of Paul on top of the story of Jesus. He quotes from Charles Talbert. “In Luke-Acts we find an architectural pattern of correspondences between the career of Jesus and the life of the apostles. In this way, Luke portrays the deeds and teachings of Jesus as the pattern for the acts and instruction of the apostolic church in the book of Acts. It is near impossible to avoid the conclusion that these correspondences between Jesus and his followers serve this purpose: Jesus is the master and the source of the Christian way of life that is imitated by his disciples.” — Charles Talbert, Literary Patterns and Theological Themes in Luke-Acts. Tim points out several interesting symbolic ways that Luke and Acts are similar. For example, when Jesus and Paul initially go to Jerusalem. They are both greeted warmly, and they both immediately go to the temple. Both Jesus and Paul stand before someone named Herod. In both cases a Roman centurion is given a positive portrait. In part 2 (11:40-21:30) Jon asks why would Luke be so interested in comparing Paul and Jesus together? Tim says that the parallelism isn’t meant to lessen Christ’s status, but instead to show that Christ’s work is continuing in regular humans who are now being grafted in, being created new as a new humanity following in Christ’s example and life. Tim shares a quote from scholar Michael Goulder: “Luke is writing a typological history, the life of Jesus providing the template for the life of the church. It is the Pauline doctrine of the body of Christ which is finding here a literary expression in the patterns and cycles of Luke’s narrative. Christ is alive and continuing his own life through his body, that is, his church.” — Michael Goulder, Type and History in Acts, 61-62. In part 3, (21:30-end) The guys discuss how the book of acts concludes. To many modern readers it is an abrupt ending. Tim shares a scholar Ben Witherington: “The ending of the book of Acts makes it clear that Luke’s purpose wasn’t simply to chronicle not the life and death of Paul, but rather the rise and spread of the gospel and of the social and religious movement to which it gave birth. Luke has provided a theological history that traces the spread of the good news from Jerusalem to Rome, from the eastern edge of the Roman Empire into its very heart. Rome was not seen in Luke’s day as the edge of the known world, and so the reader would know very well that Jesus’ mission to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8) was still ongoing in his own day. However, for Luke it was critical and symbolic that the message reach the heart and hub of the Empire, as a challenge to Caesar and a gateway into to the ends of the earth. The open-endedness that the modern reader senses in the ending of Acts is intentional. Luke is chronicling not the life and times of Paul (or any other early Christian leader), which would have a definite conclusion, but rather a phenomenon and movement that was continuing and alive and well in his own day. For Luke, Paul’s story is really… about the unstoppable word of god, which no obstacle, no shipwreck, no snake-bite, and no Roman authorities could hinder from reaching the heart of the empire and the hearts of those who lived there. -- Adapted from Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 809. Thank you to all our supporters! Show produced by: Dan Gummel Show Resources: Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 809. Michael Goulder, Type and History in Acts Charles Talbert, Literary Patterns and Theological Themes in Luke-Acts. Show Music: Defender Instrumental: Tents Where Peace and Rest Are Found Polaroid: Extenz Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In part one (0:00-13:30), Tim and Jon discuss the motives Paul had for putting himself in harm's way. Tim says that Paul's priority was to show a unified world between Jew and Gentile through belief in Jesus. Tim then outlines Paul's time in Jerusalem and his arrest. Tim points out that there are six cycles that begin with Paul being arrested, then Paul is given a platform to speak, then the authority figure saying that Paul doesn't deserve death, but he is never released. Tim says Luke is portraying Paul as a model for how Christians should relate to the powers and cultural structures of the world. Christianity is not a movement that is political, or social, or anything else, but it does encompass those things. It is an entirely different movement of an entirely different nature. In part two (13:30-30:00), Tim continues to outline Paul's trials. Tim quotes from Kavin Rowe: "The Christians are not out to establish Christendom. A new culture, yes, a new political movement, no." Tim points out that Paul submitted to the Roman authorities despite the flaws. It's a stance of loyalty and subversion. Tim points out that Luke is laying Paul's story on top of Jesus' story of also being on trial by the Jewish and Roman authorities. Luke wants the reader to think intelligently about how Christians should relate to the government. God's Kingdom is not a human kingdom; it is a vision of a new and better humanity. There is no such thing as being a Christian in private in the ancient world, nor should there be that option today. In part three (30:00-35:00), Jon points out that Christianity is a movement that doesn't need the same type of power that the Romans had. It's a groundswell, not a top-down approach. Tim says that Luke is trying to communicate that the Jesus movement is its own thing that doesn't fit any other type of movement in human history. In part four (35:00-end), Tim points out that Paul always seemed to interact with corrupt Roman politicians. But when he did, Paul encouraged that official to follow the road of high integrity that they aspire to. Show Resources: World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco Roman Age by Kavin Rowe https://www.amazon.com/World-Upside-Down-Reading-Graeco-Roman/dp/0199767610/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=kavin+rowe&qid=1551724935&s=gateway&sr=8-2 Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In part one (0:00-13:20), Tim and Jon briefly recap the series so far. They discuss Paul’s complex background. Paul was a Jew but was living primarily among Gentiles in different cities in the Roman Empire. Tim points out that because of his background, Paul’s reputation as a controversial figure continues to grow. He doesn’t fit into the normal social categories of the day. In part two (13:20-33:00), Tim dives into Acts 11:27-30: “During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.” Tim says that this is hugely symbolic. Paul is arriving back in Jerusalem with a group of international Christians bearing a gift of money to help give relief to the Jerusalem famine. Jon points out that it's really remarkable that Paul was able to raise these funds, before the days of Kickstarter. Tim says that for Paul, the gift was a symbol of the unity of the Church. There was no class system and no division across racial, ethnic, or economic lines. The gift was a representation of all that Paul believed was possible in the communities of Christians. In part three (33:00-end), Tim shares a passage from Ephesians: "Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace.” – Ephesians 2:12-15. Tim says that this passage is more evidence that Paul really wanted Jews and Gentiles to be united as one Church. Then in reference to Ephesians 3, Tim says that for Paul, the creation of the new humanity through Christ is the way that God also chooses to demonstrate his wisdom to the divine council. “Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.” – Ephesians 3:8-10. Tim says that Paul believed he was participating in a cosmic story and that working to unify Jews with all other ethnicities through Jesus was what Jesus was praying for in John 17:21: “I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.” Thank you to all of our supporters! Show Resources: World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco Roman Age by Kavin Rowe Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Carelessness Acquired in Heaven, Beautiful Eulogy Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Show Notes: Welcome to our Q+R on the Son of Man! Thank you to everyone who sent in questions. Here are the questions we responded to: Matt from Australia: (0:55) I've got a question about humans and animals. It seems like animals get a really bad rap. You've been talking about when humans don't pass the test or live as they're made to live, they're not truly the image of God, they act less than human or to be true, they act like animals. And I'm wondering what about animals is so bad or so wrong? Or are you trying to communicate about a different reality than an animal? Thanks! Petra from the Netherlands: (6:20) In the podcast (The Empty Throne), Tim refers to the Empty Throne in Daniel 7, but if I read Daniel 7 in different translations, vs 9 says "thrones" and vs 10 "the court place." So I get the conclusion that thrones are set for the court. In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells his disciples that they will sit on the 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel. I don't assume that's specific because in Revelation it says 24. My question is, where do you get the conclusion that the empty throne refers to the Son of Man because I come to the conclusion that it refers to the court. Thank you! Rachel from Delaware: (12:35) This is a question I've always had: where is Daniel in Daniel 3? Stephanie from Virginia: (21:05) My question is, why is Daniel portrayed as a new human, a new Adam, when he is not THE new human, the Messiah to come? John from North Wales: (21:20) I've found this series on the Son of Man really exciting. I have a question about Daniel. I was struck when you were taking us through those first chapters in the book of Daniel that Daniel himself actually seems to be a flawless human being. My working paradigm was that there are no heroes in the Old Testament except for God himself, but Daniel does actually seems to pass the test (or at least to not really fail the test at any particular point). So how do you interpret the figure of Daniel? Thanks! Sam from Ohio: (26:04) In Daniel 7:18, 22, 27, it speaks of the saints being given the dominion and kingdom to possess forever. Verse 27 ends by saying, "All dominions shall serve and obey them." But the ESV footnote says it might end by saying, "All dominions shall serve and obey him." Is it a possible interpretation to view the Son of Man as a figurative representation of all the saints of the Most High rather than a specific individual? Or what is the connection between the individual and the collective groups of saints? Thanks! Douglas from Rwanda: (40:15) I was curious about the use of the word "son of man" in other Old Testament books such as Ezekiel. Ezekiel appears to be written before Daniel and they use the exact same word "son of man." I wonder if you know if it has a different meaning, and if not, how is it related to Daniel's use of "son of man?" Thank you! Ivan from El Salvador: (43:20) I love the conversation about the Son of God and how he's someone God gave that title. How, with that definition, do we read John 1:12 that whoever receives him will be called a son of God? How do we understand that, or does John have a different definition in mind? Thank you to all of our supporters! Find more resources at www.thebibleproject.com Show produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Theme music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In part one (0:00-13:15), Tim and Jon briefly recap the series so far. Then Tim says that there are three different nuances that Jesus uses when describing himself as the Son of Man. The first nuance is Jesus calling himself the Son of Man when saying that he has divine authority. Here’s an example from Mark 2:8-12: "Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.” Tim says that when Jesus says, “The son of man has authority on earth,” it is recalling Adam/humanity's forfeited authority over the land/earth in Genesis 1. In the story, Jesus steps in as an Adam figure and also a high priest figure. The major part of the priests' job is to intercede for sinners and offer sacrifices of atonement for them. Jesus picks up the Adam-priest mantle in this story. Tim quotes from scholar Joel Marcus: “Adam was created to be the terrestrial representative of the heavenly king, to rule on earth as God rules in heaven… Jesus here emphasizes that his authority to forgive sin on earth derives its ultimate authority from God’s prerogative to forgive sins in heaven… The first Adam is associated with both royal rule and with sin and death, and so here Jesus is portrayed as the royal human who has power over both sin and death.” -- Joel Marcus, Son of Man as Son of Adam, 372-373. In part two (13:15-26:30), the guys dive into another example from Mark 2:23-28: "And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And He *said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made because of the human, and not the human because of the Sabbath. So the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” Tim observes that the Sabbath in Genesis 1 is an ideal of new creation that the first Adam never fully attained, and so it remained to be attained by a future son of man. Jesus is claiming to be that one. Tim quotes from Joel Marcus again: “From Genesis itself, to be sure, one might get the impression that the Sabbath was not created “because of the human,” but “for/because of God.” God rested on the seventh day from the labor of the preceding six, and therefore hallowed the seventh day in perpetuity… However, in Jewish tradition, scholars went to great pains to make clear that God wasn’t tired...but that the purpose of the Sabbath was for humanity, to provide rest for them… A similar line of thought is found here in Mark 2, the Sabbath was created for Adam’s sake and for the humanity he represents, not the other way around. The Sabbath was built into the structure of the world that was made subject to Adam. Therefore, Adam’s final son (the son of man), who has recovered dominion that his great forefather had forfeited, is the Lord not only of the world in general, but of the Sabbath in particular.” -- Joel Marcus, The Son of Man as the Son of Adam, 375-376. In part three (26:30-36:00), Tim talks about the second nuance that Jesus uses when referring to himself as the Son of Man; he describes himself as suffering. The guys examine Mark 10:35-45: "James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, *came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. “But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” “Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John. Calling them to Himself, Jesus *said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles

In part one (0:00-19:00), the guys introduce Jesus and the Gospels into the conversation. Tim remarks that there is a whole field of scholarship dedicated to studying how Christ is portrayed as a new Adam or a new Son of Man. Tim focuses on Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Mark 1:12-13: “Immediately the Spirit cast out into the wilderness. And He was in the wilderness forty days being tested by the Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him.” Tim notes that the phrase “cast out” (Grk. εκβαλλω) is first used in the Old Testament account of Adam and Eve’s explusion from the garden of Eden (Gen 3:24). He also says that both of these stories are meant to be analagous to each other. Jesus is in the wilderness (garden) with the wild animals (Adam and Eve) in the presence of the angels (cherubim and cosmic mountain). Tim cites a quote by biblical scholar Brandon Crowe: “Whereas Adam failed the temptation in the garden and was cast out, Jesus is led by the Spirit into the wilderness, a setting associated with Israel’s testing and failure. Unlike Adam, Jesus does not fail the test, and in both stories of Adam and Jesus “expulsion” the same Greek word ekballo is employed. In the wilderness, Jesus is with the wild animals, but remains unharmed [T.M. like Daniel], which is supposed to strike the reader as unusual. Jesus’ peaceful coexistence with the wild animals signifies his authority over them, and recalls Adam’s original dominion over the animals in the garden. Like Adam, Jesus has been granted the worldwide dominion, becoming the instrument of God’s dominion over the world.” -- Brandon Crowe, The Last Adam: A Theology of the Obedient Life of Jesus in the Gospels, 24 Tim points out that the temptation of Jesus in Mark, specifically the details of the angels serving him and him being with the wild beasts, is meant to show that Jesus is the new Adam, the perfect Adam who can coexist peacefully with animals in the wild. Further, Tim points out that Jesus is portrayed as having authority over the other spiritual beings (angels) to show that Jesus is the ideal Son of Man figure. In part two (19:00-18:30), Tim and Jon take a side tour and discuss how in Hebrew there are places where the Hebrew word adam can refer to either a specific character, Adam, or to humanity as a whole. The guys also discuss the nuances between the terms Son of Man and Son of God. Tim notes that Psalm 2 is a key passage for understanding how both of these terms link together. To be called the image of God as humanity means to be the creatures where heaven and earth are bound together. Psalm 2: “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, ‘Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.’ The One enthroned in heaven laughs, the Lord scoffs at them. He rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, ‘I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.’ I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have become your father. Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.’” In part three (18:30-end), Jon asks why heaven and earth are supposed to be ideally imaged in humanity. Tim replies that humanity is meant to be related to the elohim. We are not elohim, but we are to share in a similar status of having a divine ability to rule. Tim and Jon then dive into the temptation of Jesus portrayed in Matthew 4:8-11: “Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’ ” Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.” Tim notes that there is only one other time in the New Testament where Jesus utters the phrase, “Get behind me Satan” or “Go, Satan” (in the NIV). It’s in Matthew 16:23: “Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." Tim notes that Jesus obviously sees that a satanic mindset is one where the mindset is human-focused and set on how a beast would rule the world, one of power and strength not of sacrifice. Tim points out that after these temptations, you are supposed to see Jesus as a new Adam. He peacefully coexists with animals. He’s a new Daniel; he doesn’t bow down to the rulers. He’s a new David because he rules righteously. Jesus is the full package. Thank you to all of our supporters! Have a question? Send it to [email protected] Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins, Tim Mackie Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Yesterday on Repeat, Vexento Morning, LIQWYD

In part one (0:00-12:00), the guys quickly recap the biblical story leading up to Daniel 7. There are many models of the Son of Man in the Old Testament: Noah, Moses, David, Joshua. They all get close, but they ultimately fail and are not able to be the perfect “seed of the woman” that will crush the snake and fulfill the prophecy given in Genesis after the fall. In part two (12:00-29:30), the guys dive into Daniel 7: In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying in bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream. Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea. “The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it. “And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’ “After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule. After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns. “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully. As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened. Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.) In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. Tim makes the following observations: The animals are like an anti-creation. They are extremely non-kosher animals. They are mutants, and they come out of chaotic, watery darkness. They are chaos creatures. Daniel sees the same throne room (v 9) that Ezekiel saw in his vision in Ezekiel 1. What Nebuchadnezzar had wanted, to be praised and worshiped by everyone, happens to the Son of Man when God exalts him. In parts three and four (29:30-52:00), Tim and Jon cover the interpretation of the dream in v15-27: I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this. So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’ Then I wanted to know the meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom. He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom.

In part one (0:00-6:30), the guys briefly go over the previous conversations from the Son of Man series. Tim explains that in order to fully understand the Son of Man imagery in Daniel 7, Daniel 1-6 needs to first be unpacked. Daniel 7 is significant because it’s a culminating vision of the whole Hebrew Bible imagery told in one very dense chapter. In part two (6:30-25:50), the guys go over the history of the Babylonian Empire and King Nebuchadnezzar. He was a king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, a sort of resurgence of the previous Babylonian rule. Babylon had long been dormant while Assyria was the world superpower, but Babylon had a brief rise to prominence again under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar. He dominated Jerusalem and took their promising youth with him to Babylon. Daniel was in this group. Tim points out a few hyperlinks to other parts of the Hebrew Bible at the beginning of the book of Daniel. Daniel is the "royal seed" carried away to Babylon who replays the test of Adam and Eve and succeeds! Daniel 1:3-4: "And the king of Babylon told his officers to bring from the sons of Israel and from the royal seed… youths...who were good of sight and wise with all wisdom, and knowing knowledge, and understanding knowledge…" Dan 1:5-7: "And the king assigned for them a daily ration of the king’s choice food and his wine, to raise them for three years so they could stand in his service. Among them were sons of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah...but Daniel set it upon his heart to not defile himself with the king’s choice food or his wine…" Dan 1:12: "Daniel said, 'Let there be given to us from the seeds, and we will eat, and water, and we will drink.'" Daniel is depicted as a new Adam, who is brought into Babylon already having great knowledge. He refuses the forbidden food (Daniel ch. 1) and only increases in wisdom! Instead, he adopts an Eden-diet of veggies and water and is elevated to serve in the king’s court. Tim’s point is that Daniel is the forbidden fruit that the king of Babylon has just taken. Daniel has an opportunity to eat the forbidden food of the king and break his kosher diet. He refuses the forbidden food and therefore passes the test. In part three (25:50-end), Tim and Jon go over the two dreams that Nebuchadnezzar has leading up to Daniel 7. In Daniel 2, the king has a dream. Once Daniel gives the interpretation, the king worships Daniel. Daniel 2:46-49: "Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face and worshipped (sagid) Daniel, and gave orders to present to him an offering and incense. Then the king promoted Daniel and gave him many great gifts, and he made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. And Daniel made request of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego over the administration of the province of Babylon, while Daniel was at the king’s court." Then Daniel 3 is an inversion of Daniel 2. The king wants everyone to worship an image of him. This is the story of the blazing furnace. Daniel 3:10-12: “You, O king, have made a decree that every man who hears the sound of the horn, flute, lyre, trigon, psaltery, and bagpipe and all kinds of music, is to fall down and worship the image of gold. “But whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast into the midst of a furnace of blazing fire. “There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the administration of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. These men, O king, have disregarded you; they do not serve (palakh) your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up.” So Daniel 2 and 3 are inversions of each other, and then in Daniel 4, the king has another dream. In the dream, a "watcher” appears. Tim notes that this is the only time that specific word appears in the Hebrew Bible. However, it also appears in the book of Enoch, a Jewish book written in the same time period. The king calls Daniel again to interpret the dream. Daniel 4:20-25: "The tree that you saw, which became large and grew strong, whose height reached to the sky and was visible to all the earth and whose foliage was beautiful and its fruit abundant, and in which was food for all, under which the beasts of the field dwelt and in whose branches the birds of the sky lodged— it is you, O king; for you have become great and grown strong, and your majesty has become great and reached to the sky and your dominion to the end of the earth. ‘In that the king saw a watcher, a holy one, descending from heaven and saying, “Chop down the tree and destroy it; yet leave the stump with its roots in the ground, but with a band of iron and bronze in the new grass of the field, and let him be drenched with the dew of heaven, and let him share with the beasts of the field until seven periods of time pass over him,” this is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which has come upon my

In part one (0:00-13:10), Tim recaps the series so far. He says the Son of Man title is Christ’s favorite title to use to describe himself, and it originally comes from a dream in Daniel 7. Tim then recaps Genesis 1 and 2. Humans are created after the animals but are then called to rule over the animals. So the creation and power order is inverted. Humans are overcome by the animals when they listen to the serpent, and humans embrace an animal-like state. Tim emphasizes that flowing out of Genesis are two lineages: a human lineage, the seed of the woman, and an animal lineage, the seed of the serpent. And at some point, a Son of Man will deliver the seed of the woman from the seed of the serpent. In part two (13:10-18:30), Tim and Jon dive into the imagery of animals in the Bible. Jon asks what is the proper relationship with animals for people to have. Tim speculates that animals are meant to be in a peaceful relationship with humans. And a peaceful connection with the animals is an image the prophets use to describe a new creation. (Lions, lambs etc. ) In part three (18:30-33:50), Tim dives further into Genesis. He examines the inverted first born/second born relationships in the book. Abraham has two children, Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael is the firstborn but is not chosen by God. Instead, God chooses Isaac. Then later in the story, Isaac has two sons, Jacob and Esau. Jacob is the second born and is chosen by God. Tim points out that the pattern is intentional. In part four (33:50-end), Tim then moves into the account of the Exodus. Pharaoh says he wants to deal “shrewdly” with the Hebrews. This is a synonym of the snake saying it is the “crafty” beast. Pharaoh is now embracing an animal-like tendency and seeking to harm the Hebrews. Then Tim dives into the story of the burning bush. God tells Moses to turn his staff into a snake ( snake (נחש) ). Many western readers see this story as some sort of magic trick that God is telling Moses to do. That's far from what's happening. Tim says the story is actually meant to portray Moses as a successful “son of man” who has power over the snake. This point is further emphasized when Moses and his brother Aaron go before Pharaoh to demand the release of the Hebrews. Aaron throws down his staff and it becomes, in Hebrew, a sea serpent. This is a different word than the previous word used for snake. Exodus 7:8-13: "Now the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, “When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, ‘Perform a sign,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh, that it may become a sea serpent (תנין).’" So Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, and thus they did just as the Lord had commanded; and Aaron threw his staff down before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a sea serpent (תנין). Then Pharaoh also called for the wise men and the sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same with their secret arts. For each one threw down his staff and they turned into sea serpents (תנין). But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had said." Tim says the point is Moses and Aaron becoming associated characters. They are humans who have power over the snake. Literally. They grab snakes and symbolically they prevail over Pharaoh. This theme is picked up by later biblical authors who see the symbolism and use the same word, “sea serpent,” to describe Israel’s enemies. Isaiah 51:9-11: "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; [// the arm of Moses with the staff] Awake as in the days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not You who cut Rahab in pieces, [= Israelite name for the god of Egypt] Who pierced the sea-monster (תנין/tanin) Was it not You who dried up the sea, The waters of the great deep; Who made the depths of the sea a pathway For the redeemed to cross over? So the ransomed of the Lord will return And come with joyful shouting to Zion" Ezekiel 32:2: “Son of man, take up a lamentation over Pharaoh king of Egypt and say to him, ‘You compared yourself to a young lion of the nations, Yet you are like the monster (tanin) in the seas." Thank you to all of our supporters! Have a question about the Son of Man? Send it to us as we begin preparing for an upcoming Q+R episode. Show Produced By: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Where Peace and Rest are Found, Beautiful Eulogy Conquer, Beautiful Eulogy Mind Your Time, Me. So. Show Resources: Son of Man Video: https://bit.ly/2D3wD9o Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary Crispin Fletcher-Louis, Jesus Monotheism Richard Bauckham, Living with Other Creatures Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to episode 3 of our series on the Son of Man! In this episode, Tim and Jon dive deep into the history, the story, and the ideas surrounding one of the most famous figures in the Bible: the Serpent. In part one (0:00-8:00), Tim and Jon briefly recap the previous episode. Humanity is supposed to live in peaceful coexistence and be responsible for the animals. Tim says that Daniel’s vision in Daniel chapter 7 of the Son of Man shows us that humans are meant to be over the animals, but instead they end up behaving like animals. In part two (8:00-24:30), Tim dives into Genesis 3 and begins examining the serpent. The snake is presented as crafty. This is the Hebrew word "arum.” In other cases in the Bible, this word has a positive connotation, but in this context, it means a negative use of intelligence. Gen 3:1: "Now the serpent was more arum than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made." In the following Proverbs, arum is used to demonstrate a positive character trait. Proverbs 14:15: "The naive believes everything, but the sensible man considers his steps." Proverbs 27:12: "The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty." So in Genesis 3, arum is translated as “crafty.” This is the only time it's translated with a negative sense, but usually arum means sharp, quick thinker, problem solver etc. Tim also briefly says that in other ancient religions, especially in Egypt, snakes were symbolically significant. Tim says the snake is presented as a creature alongside the humans. It uses its divine blessing (wisdom) to twist the divine command by telling the humans that they can be like-God (or “like gods”). But the humans already are God-like, having been made in God’s image. Tim observes that after Adam and Eve take the serpent's advice, eat the fruit, and are expelled from the Garden, the very next story is one where Cain also listens to “sin” that is described as “crouching” at his door. Both of these narratives portray humans being ruled by beasts, instead of ruling over them. Death is the result. Once humans choose to redefine good and evil, they become beastly. In part three (24:30-28:00), Tim quickly goes over the Messianic promise that God gives in Genesis 3:15: “And I will set hostility Between you [serpent] and the woman, And between your [serpent] seed and her seed; He [seed of woman] shall strike you [serpent] on the head, And you [serpent] shall strike him [seed of woman] on the heel.” Tim says that this sets up the main plot conflict for the biblical story. Humans must recover their ability to rule over the beasts, and this will be done by the true Son of Man who strikes the serpent. In part four (28:00-end), Tim overviews the whole biblical fall narrative. Tim says that the story of Noah is significant, as it represents a failed restart of creation. Noah was set up to save the animals from the flood. He did so, and seemed to act as a true son of man. Noah gets off the boat, and God recommissions Noah to “be fruitful and multiply” and fill the earth. Then God pivots and gives humanity a new diet: “The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Genesis 9:1-4). Noah eventually falls away from following God’s blessing. And one of his son’s (Ham) descendants Nimrod is mentioned as being the first “hunter” in the Bible. Nimrod was also the founder of Babylon. Why are we told both of these details about Nimrod’s life? Because it represents an archetype that is developing. Humanity is now choosing to become part of a cycle of acting like beasts, creating a violent, killing culture. Since humanity has chosen this path, they now must be saved by the true Son of Man. He will be the seed of the woman, but instead of giving in to the violence of humanity, he will choose to overcome it. Thank you to all of our supporters! Show Produced By: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Pilgrim, Instrumentals The Size of Grace, Beautiful Eulogy Show Resources: Our video on the Son of Man: INSERT LINK Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary Crispin Fletcher-Louis, Jesus Monotheism Richard Bauckham, Living with Other Creatures James Hamilton, With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology Brandon Crowe, The Last Adam: A Theology of the Obedient Life of Jesus in the Gospels Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to episode two of our series discussing the biblical theme of the Son of Man. In this episode, Tim and Jon discuss humanity's role in relation to other parts of creation, specifically animals. In part one (0:00-30:15), the guys briefly recap the first episode and quickly go over Daniel’s dream in Daniel 7, where he has a vision of the Son of Man appearing. Tim then dives into the language and ideas presented in Genesis 1 and specifically focuses on the order of creation and how the days are paired. Genesis 1:1-2: In the beginning God created the skies and the land and the land was wild and waste, and darkness was over the face of the watery deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Wild (tohu) = unordered Waste (vohu) = uninhabited Day 1 - Light: Separated from dark, day and night. Day 4 - Lights appointed to rule the day and night. Day 2 - Waters above separated from waters below. Day 5 - Creatures in waters below, creatures in waters above. “And God created the great sea monsters..." (1:21) “And God blessed them, saying be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters…” (1:22) Day 3 - Water separated from dry land. “Let the land bring forth (ותוצא) plants and vegetation and seed-producing plants and trees producing fruit.” (1:12) Day 6 - Creatures on the land. “Let the land bring forth (ותוצא) living beasts by their kinds.” (1:25) “Let us create the human (ha-adam) in our image and as our likeness… And God blessed them, and said, (1) be fruitful and multiply and fill the land and subdue it, and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the beasts on the land.” (1:26-28) Gen 2:1-3: God rests on the seventh day, which does not end. Tim then focuses on humanity's relationship with animals. Tim notices that humans are the “second comers” to creation, who are given the responsibility to rule over the animals who came first. This is a pattern that shows itself many times in Genesis. (Think about Joseph’s sons later in the story.) Tim then asks what it means for humans to be called to rule over the animals. Tim cites Richard Bauckham’s book Living with Other Creatures, “It is not often well enough noticed that the command God gives to humanity refers to two rather different matters. It refers first to the relationship of humans to the earth, secondly to their relationship to other living creatures...and they are not the same thing. Humans are not alone in being told to be fruitful and to multiply and to fill, the first and birds were given the same blessing on day 5. Only humans are told to fill and to subdue the land. In the narrative this refers clearly to agriculture, taking possession of the soil and working it in order to make it yield more food for humans than it would otherwise do. But what about all the other land animals? How does humanity’s role of subduing land relate to God’s blessing of the animals to fill the land? Notice God’s next words to the humans: See, I have given you (humans) every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food. (Gen 1: 29– 30) Why does God tell humans that he has given every plant for food for the other living creatures? Surely, the reason is that it is the humans who need to know that the produce of the earth is not intended to feed them alone, but also all the living species of the earth. The clear implication is that the earth can provide enough food for all creatures. Humans are not to fill the earth and subdue it in a way that leaves no room and no sustenance for the other creatures who share the earth with them. God has given them too the right to live from the soil. So the human right to make use of the earth, to live from it, is far from unlimited. It must respect the existence of other creatures. The biblical portrait of human dominion over the animals must be filled out by the Bible’s vision of “royal rule.” Since Genesis depicts the image of God as a kind of royal function, the rule of a king over others, it is worth recalling the only passage in the law of Moses that refers to the role of the king in Israel (Deut. 17: 14– 20). There it is emphasized that the king is one among his brothers and sisters, his fellow-Israelites, and should not forget it. He should not accumulate wealth or arms or indulge in any of the ways kings usually exalt themselves above their subjects. Only if they remember their fundamental solidarity with their people will kings be able to rule truly for the benefit of their people. Similarly, only when humans remember their fundamental solidarity with their fellow-creatures will they be able to exercise their distinctive authority within creation for the benefit of other creatures.” (pp. 226-228) In part two (30:15-41:30), Jon asks about carn

In part one (0:00-19:30), the guys discuss what “son of” means in our current culture. They bring up certain phrases like “Sons of Anarchy,” “Sons of Liberty,” etc. Tim says this means that someone identifies with an idea or ideology. Tim then offers the fact that historically people have referred to Jesus as Christ. Christ is actually a Greek word meaning Messiah. Messiah in Hebrew means the anointed one. Tim then says that Jesus never referred to himself as Christ or Messiah, and when others would refer to him as this, he would reply that he is the “Son of Man.” Why is this? For example in Luke 9:18-22: "Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, 'Who do the crowds say I am?' They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life.' 'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Peter answered, 'God’s Messiah.' Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone. And he said, 'The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.'" Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man in the third person immediately after Peter called him the Messiah. Tim then posits that Paul doesn’t use the phrase “the Son of Man” in his writings. Instead, he uses phrases like “the firstborn of all creation” or “the new humanity.” Tim says this is because Paul is taking the message of Jesus to an international audience that isn’t familiar with what the Son of Man means. So what does the Son of Man mean? And where does it come from? Well in part two (19:30-32:00), Tim takes us to Daniel 7, a famous dream that Daniel had where the Son of Man appears. Tim says that this dream is very iconic and well known in Jewish history. Everyone would have known about it. Daniel has a dream about a succession of beasts that trample humanity. There are thrones established in the heavens over the earth, but only one of them is filled. It’s filled by the Ancient of Days, which is Daniel’s phrase for God/Yahweh. So there is an empty throne, then a figure called the Son of Man rides up on a cloud to the Ancient of Days. The Son of Man is presented to the Ancient of Days and then is given dominion. The Son of Man then sits down on the empty throne. In part three (32:00-end), the guys break down the phrase the Son of Man. If someone refers to themselves as “the Dark Knight,” people automatically know that they are referring to Batman. Similarly, if someone calls themselves “the Son of Man,” they are referring to a certain character in the Hebrew storyline. They discuss what it means for Jesus to be comfortable inserting himself into Daniel’s dream. Thank you to all of our supporters! Show Produced By: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Someday Be Free, Copyright Free Instrumental. Miss Emili, General Vibe Show Resources Our video on the Son of Man: https://bit.ly/2FvYzGb Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, Tim and Jon revisit the different ideas and themes that have been discussed in our podcast series on the identity of God in the Hebrew scriptures. In part one (0:00-27:30), the guys briefly outline some of the ideas in the series. Jon asks Tim if in the garden of Eden is the serpent’s offer to the humans of becoming “like God,” or in Hebrew, “like elohim.” Does it actually imply that humanity was looking to be in a different class of being than the one they were created to be? Tim says he thinks this is right. It’s about an overreach from what your created realm of authority is supposed to be. Tim reflects on the story of the Hebrew Bible as a whole saying that it’s a commentary on God’s intention for humanity to rule as his images. And while they may be lower in class than the spiritual beings/elohim. They are the image of the elohim of elohim (Yahweh) and are therefore entitled to rule. Tim says the question is whether humanity will choose to know good and evil by grabbing it out of turn, or if they will learn it relationally by being in relationship with Yahweh. Tim says that these stories are designed to be elusive and allusive. They are supposed to be somewhat vague and not to be read like a textbook. They are also supposed to allude to other stories in the Bible. In part two (27:30-49:00), the guys continue to reflect on the takeaways from their discussions in the God series. Jon says that he wishes he could arrive at more closure around the idea of the Trinity, but he wonders if that’s even possible. Tim sympathizes and says that the idea to some degree lacks language and human ability to comprehend it. Tim says that Peter says people are made to be “participators in the divine nature.” 2 Peter 1:3: “His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.” In part three (49:00-end), Tim says there are a few other things that he learned in the series. For example, in the ancient world, the concept of giants is a huge idea. Giants are always connected to being divine or semi-divine. Tim says the Hebrew word nimrod actually means rebel in Hebrew. Tim also says that he realized how huge Daniel 7 is. It’s a chapter that is crucial to understanding Jesus’ worldview and who he thought he was. Tim also mentions two books (see resources) that helped him understand the ancient Hebrew view of God/Yahweh among other gods. The guys wrap up the conversation by talking a little bit about the upcoming Q+R and looking forward to the Son of Man series premiering next year. Thank you to all of our supporters! Show resources: The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel by Benjamin D. Sommer The Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal Our video on God: https://bit.ly/2CycuKe Show Produced By: Dan Gummel Show Music: Defender Instrumental. Tents Faith, Tae the Producer Praise through the Valley, Tae the Producer Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Thank you to every single one of our podcast listeners. Because of your generous support, we were able to release over 40 episodes this year! We also wanted to mention our #EveryDollarDecember campaign. We are raising support for our translation teams across the world. Every single dollar raised this December will be used to fund the translations of our videos. You can find out more about this campaign at thebibleproject.com/donate. Merry Christmas from Tim, Jon, and The Bible Project team! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the final episode in our series on God! Today Tim and Jon discuss the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In part one (0:00-31:00), Tim and Jon briefly discuss how identity is always contingent upon things revealed by that individual. At any point in time, we are never aware of a full identity of something or someone because our knowledge of that thing is always partial. Tim says that God’s identity as a community of love represented in the Trinity is mirrored when humans choose to live in a community of love as well. Tim cites Michael Reeves and asks what God was doing before Creation? Tim says the Apostles offer an answer to this question with John 17:24 and Jesus claiming “you loved me before the creation of the world.” So the eternal state of God is as Father loving the Son through the Spirit. What does it mean that God is a “loving father?” Well, Yahweh is occasionally described as Father in the OT (Exod 4:22; Hosea 11:1; Isaiah 63:16), and Jesus used "my father" as his fundamental title for God. In part two (31:00-42:15), the guys continue to break down the doctrine of the Trinity. Tim expands on the identity of God as a father and shares a quote from Reeves addressing why Jesus used the word father to describe his relationship. “Jesus called God ‘Father’ because he is a father. It’s a name rich with meaning. A father is someone who gives life, who ‘begets’ children… If, before all things, God was eternally a father, that means “God” is an inherently outgoing, others-centered, life-giving God. The Christian God did not give life for the first time when he decided to create the universe. We’re asked to consider that from eternity God in his essence is life-giving… This is why in 1 John 4, he says “God is love,” because in the next sentence he says “This is how God revealed his love among us: he sent his One and Only Son, that we might live through him.” The God who is love is the Father who sends the Son. To be Father means to love, to give out life, to the Son and through him to others.” – Michael Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity, 24. Jon says that things get very metaphorical very quickly because God’s relationship with Jesus is not a one-created-the-other relationship. Instead, their relationship is a symbiotic one. They give and receive love as a father and son should give and receive love. Tim goes further and points out that biblical writers say that God is not only father but also love. The guys both agree that when discussing this, you quickly find yourself at the limits of language. There is an inability to articulate the identity of God, and that is the point. Tim also shares Gregory of Nyssa's commentary on Hebrews 1:3: “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of God’s being. As the light from the lamp is of the same nature as the flame which shed the brightness and is united with it [where does the light “begin”?], so the Son is of the Father and the Father is never without the Son; for it is impossible that glory should be without radiance, as it is impossible that the lamp should be without brightness.” – “On the Faith,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2.5, p.338 In part three (42:15-end), Tim shares the Baptism of Jesus as seen when looking for the Trinity. The Father loves the Son through/by the Spirit. Tim cites Reeves again: “The way the Father, Son, and Spirit, related at Jesus’ baptism was not a one-time only event. The whole scene is full of echoes of Genesis 1. There at creation, the Spirit also hovered, dovelike, over the waters. And just as the Spirit, after Jesus’ baptism, would send him out into the lifeless wilderness, so in Genesis 1 the Spirit appears as the power by which God’s word goes out into the lifeless void… In both the work of creation (Genesis 1) and in the work of new creation (the Gospel stories), God’s word goes out by his Spirit. It’s all revealing what God is truly like. The Spirit is the One through whom the Father loves, blesses, and empowers his Son. The Son goes out from the Father by the Spirit.” – Michael Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity, 30. Tim then shares 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship [Grk. koinonia] of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” Jon says that the word “God” becomes a stand-in for Father. Tim says that’s correct and can be confusing at times, but it should be examined contextually to see what it’s referring to. Tim then shares Galatians 4:4: “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Tim closes the episode by sharing a final quote from Reeves: “This ‘God’ simply doesn’t fit the mold of any other. The Trinity is not some inessential add-on to God, some optional software that can be plugged into him. At bottom, in essence, this God is not first of all Creator or Ruler or even “Deity” in some abstract sense. He is Father, loving his Son in the fellowship of the

This episode continues our series on the portrayal of God as a character in the Bible. Today Tim and Jon dive into the Gospel of John and how it portrays the relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. In part one (0:00-13:30), Tim says that reading John is similar to watching a remake of a movie, only with a different director. The Gospel of John was the Gospel that was written the latest, and John himself seems to have been the last living disciple of the original twelve. Tim says that John feels like a reflective retelling of the story of Jesus. This means the language used in the book is slightly different than in other Gospels and books in the Bible. Tim says that John specifically hones in on using the language of “oneness.” It echoes the Shema. For example, Tim cites Richard Baukum, saying that in John 5:16 (Healing the crippled man on the Sabbath): “For this reason, the Jews were persecuting Jesus because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” For this reason, therefore, the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." Or again in John 10:30-31: “'I and the Father are one.' The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.” And again in John 14:10: “Philip, do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.” Tim says that the point is that John has reflected the Jewish Shema in Jesus and God the Father’s relationship intentionally. In part two (13:30-23:30), Tim and John look at the divine name. John 8:56-59" “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him.” Tim says that this is taken directly from Exodus 3:14. In part three (23:30-28:10), the guys look at John 17. Tim calls this chapter the climatic summary of the themes in the book. John 17:1-3: “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." Tim says to notice the Daniel 7 echoes: Son, authority over all flesh, etc. John 17:5: “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” Tim says that Jesus was the pre-existent word and wisdom of God and the embodiment of his divine glory. In part four (28:10-end), Tim shares John 17:11. "Holy Father, keep them in your name, the name which you have given me, that they may be one even as we are one.” Tim says that Jesus and the Father bear “the name” showing that they are one. John 17:20-26: “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that also they may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as we are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in one-ness, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” Tim says that the true nature of God the Father’s relationship with Jesus is mirrored in how people relate with each other through love. Tim shares a quote from scholar Larry Hurtado: “The Gospel of John draws on a rich, almost interchangeable association of God and God’s name to express a uniquely intimate relationship between Jesus and the Father. Indeed, for the author of the Gospel of John, for whom the biblical traditions provided the authoritative store of vocabulary, images, and themes by which to express the significance of Jesus, this divine-name tradition constituted the most profound way to portray the relationship of the “son” to the “father.” To speak of Jesus as invested with the divine name, as given the name, as manifesting God’s name in his own words and actions, as coming with and in the name of God, was to portray Jesus as bearing and exhibiting God in the most direct way possible in the conceptual ca

Welcome to another episode in our series on God as a character in the Bible! Today, Tim and Jon dive into Paul’s understanding of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The passages that Tim shares are commonly referred to as the “Trinitarian texts” of Paul. These passages were fundamental to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. In part 1(0-11:00), Tim uses an example out of Galatians 4. “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Torah, so that He might redeem those who were under the Torah, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Here, Paul invites people to see that the same Father-Son love that was communicated by the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism is inviting us into the community of divine love as well. Tim says you quickly reach the point in Paul’s letters where all the terms are interchangeable. Jesus’ Father becomes “Our Father”. In part 2(11:00-21:50), Tim shares another example, this time out of Jesus, the Spirit, and God’s Life [Romans 8:9-11] However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. [Romans 8:14-15] For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” Tim points out that this statement is very similar to the Shema. Paul has taken the God/Spirit unity and put Christ in the middle of it. Paul and the early Christians believed that Jesus was divine from the very beginning. Christ’s divinity, identity as God, and the doctrine of the Trinity, are beliefs that the earliest Christians shared, it was not an idea later imposed on Christianity. In Part 3 (21:50-end), Tim outlines part of his own personal journey of faith. He shares that when Paul says we are known by God more than we actually know God. Fundamentally, Christianity is experiencing God, living in a relationship with God. It is secondarily about arranging facts and knowledge. To us the metaphor of a parent and child, a child never truly knows a parent. But a parent knows a child. Resources: Our Video on God: https://bit.ly/2Spyf3H N.T. Wright’s course on the Apostle Paul: https://bit.ly/2Qwqrzy Gordon Fee, Paul the Spirit and the People of God. Music: Defender Instrumental: Tents Praise Through the Valley: Tae the Producer He’s Always There: Tae the Producer Produced by: Dan Gummel. Jon Collins. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is a very special episode of our podcast. Today Tim and Jon talk with N.T. Wright, a well-known biblical scholar. Wright has heavily influenced many areas of theology, especially through his work outlining the Apostle Paul. Dr. Wright outlines his childhood and his original introduction to the Bible (0:00-9:40). Dr. Wright discusses Paul’s mindset as a Jew, especially before his transformation on the road to Damascus (9:40-18:20). Dr. Wright explains what he thinks happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. He thinks Paul was meditating on the vision in Ezekiel 1 while on the road. He also explains what he thinks happens during the decade after Paul’s transformation. Dr. Wright also mentions that it’s unusual that Paul never returns to Tarsus in Acts (18:20-31:50). Dr. Wright then discusses Paul’s balance between being loyal to his Jewish roots but also believing that the Jews and their God were supposed to be a blessing to all the nations. Dr. Wright says that for Paul, the whole point of the Gospel was to give Abraham his single worldwide family and that through the Jews, God would redeem all humanity. Paul believes that ultimately all people are God’s people, not just the Jews (31:50-end). Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Tim Mackie, Jon Collins, Matthew Halbert-Howen Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents. Show Resources: Our video on Paul in Acts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiVAbkINtRU Paul: A Biography, N.T Wright. N.T. Wright’s online classes: www.ntwrightonline.org/thebibleproject Thank you to all of our supporters! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode continues our series on God as a character in the Bible. Today Tim and Jon dive into the writings of Paul in the New Testament. In part one (0:00-7:25), Tim explains that Paul’s writings are actually chronologically written earlier than the Gospels, even though they come toward the end of our modern Bibles. Tim says this is important because it shows that the theology expressed by Paul wasn’t something that developed years later after the Gospels. Instead, Paul’s stance on Jesus actually predates the accounts. In part two (7:25-22:10), Tim and Jon examine Romans 10:8-9, 12-13: “The message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…. For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'” Tim’s point is that the Greek word “kurios,” when translated through the Hebrew, equates to Paul calling Jesus Yahweh. So in the quote from the book of Joel, the logic would be: Jesus = Kurios = Yahweh. Joel 2:32: Hebrew: “Everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved.” Joel 2:32 Greek Septuagint: “Everyone who calls on the name of Kurios will be saved.” “Jesus is Lurios” Romans 10:9, 13: “Everyone who calls on the name of Kurios will be saved.” Tim moves on and talks about Jesus and the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:4. “Therefore concerning the eating of foods sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” Tim says that Paul has basically inserted Jesus into the Shema. The Messianic Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6: For us, there is one God (theos), the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord (kurios), Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. The Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4-5: Hebrew: “Listen O Israel, Yahweh is our Elohim, Yahweh is one. Greek Septuagint: “Hear O Israel, Kurios is our theos, Kurios is one. κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν Tim says the analogy of 1+1=1 is a mathematical analogy to show how Paul reasons that Jesus and God the Father can be one and separate at the same time. With this logic, he can fit both Jesus and God the Father in the Shema comfortably. In part three (22:10-end), Tim outlines Colossians 1:15-20: And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, [both] in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and to himself. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. And He is head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead ones; so that he might have first place in everything. For in him it was the [Father's] good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven. Tim points out that this is a sort of summit of Paul’s ideas on Jesus. In Paul’s mind, Jesus unites all of the Old Testament themes, and all of the labels and titles Paul gives Jesus in this passage trace back to Old Testament ideas. Tim says Paul breaks with the meanings of the words and how they had been used in the Hebrew scriptures. Tim says that this passage is originally formatted as poetry, which makes sense because there are so many complex ideas being presented that poetry is the only proper way to appreciate it. Thank you to all of our supporters! You can check out all our resources at www.thebibleproject.com Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins, Matthew Halbert-Howen Show Music: Eden, Tae the Producer Faith, Tae the Producer Show Resources: Our video on God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAvYmE2YYIU&t=1s Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is our fourth Q+R related to our series outlining the character of God in the Bible. Tim and Jon responded to seven questions related to Jesus and His part in the divine identity in the Bible. Here are the questions and timestamps: Q1: (1:00) Evan from Suwanee, Georgia: You've talked about the wisdom, glory, word, and spirit of God and how biblical authors treat them as Yahweh but also distinct from Yahweh. Similarly, the angel of Yahweh is also written about in the same way. Trinitarians suggest God is three persons in one essence yet we see these four additional attributes and the angel of Yahweh treated in a similar manner. So my question is, how did the biblical authors treat the Father, Son, and Spirit differently that would lead to the Trinitarian viewpoint vs. a multi-faceted God who is more than just a triune Godhead? Thanks! Q2: (11:25) Lindsay from Breman, Indiana: I was wondering, you guys just spoke a little bit about how in the Gospel of John we see all of those threads coming together, such as God's wisdom, glory, and the word of God as distinct from Yahweh but Yahweh. Is there anything like that in the synoptic gospels? Thanks! Q3: (28:55) Chris from Orange County, California: If the idea of the Trinity is based on commonly held views by the Hebrews of a complex God then why were the Jews in Luke 22 and John 10 so incensed by Jesus' claim to be the son of God and why is that a common objection by Jews today? Q4: (33:10) Andrew from Gresham, Oregon: I have a question regarding Jesus as God. At the beginning of the Gospel of John, I've heard Jehovah's Witnesses say the church has always misunderstood that reference to the Word being God and it truly is saying that the Word was a god. With all the talk we've had about the various Elohim I'm wondering if there's some credence to that or if it really was saying that the Word was God proper. Thanks, guys! Q5: (36:55) Brandon from Provo, Utah: In previous podcasts, you talked about how personified wisdom and Jesus Himself are tied to Yahweh's transcendent nature by means of creation and exaltation imagery. What does it mean for Jesus to grant "the one that conquers" in Revelation 3 to sit with Jesus on His throne just like He conquered and sits with His Father on His throne? Is this part of what Jesus was praying for in John 17? Thanks! Q6: (43:10) Joel from South Carolina: While you guys were discussing the different attributes of God, it reminded me of how love is often described in the New Testament, specifically in 1 John 4:7-8. In verse 7 it says love is "from God" while in verse 8 it says God is love. So I was wondering whether love is considered to be a part of these attributes that are separate from God while at the same time being a part of God. Thank you! Q7: (46:45) Michael from Bangkok, Thailand: My question is about the identity for of mission of Jesus. When I was younger, I assumed that because Jesus was God He was aware of that His whole life. But when I see things like Jesus asking questions as a boy in the temple or Luke saying Jesus grew in wisdom it seems to me Jesus didn't start out with this inherent self-awareness of being God but went through a process learning about God and even His own identity as Messiah through the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. So what does the Bible show us about Jesus' process of understanding His own identity? Thanks, guys. Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Resources: Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, "A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature." https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Grammar-Testament-Christian-Literature/dp/0226271102/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541805528&sr=8-1&keywords=blass+debrunner+funk&dpID=51XBFCCXMRL&preST=SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40&dpSrc=srch Herbert Smyth, "Classical Greek Grammar." https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Grammar-Revised-Herbert-Smyth/dp/1614275238/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541805590&sr=8-1&keywords=smyth+greek+grammar&dpID=410jB6H23RL&preST=SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40&dpSrc=srch Our video on God: https://bit.ly/2CycuKe Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Next week is a Q+R! Get your questions ready and send them to [email protected]. Please keep the audio file to about 20 seconds and let us know your name and where you’re from. This episode continues our series on God. Tim and Jon dive deeper into the portrayal of Jesus as a character in the New Testament. They ask the big question: Just who did Jesus think he was? In part one (00:00-12:15), Tim and Jon briefly recap the conversation so far. As depicted in the Hebrew Scriptures, God is a “complex unity.” Tim says it’s a fundamental mistake and a case of cultural imperialism to read the Bible expecting the biblical authors to use language and words the same way that you do. He offers an example: Would you travel to another country and expect them to speak the same way, eat the same things, and have all of the cultural norms you are accustomed to? Of course not. You travel to see other cultures. So when reading the Bible, the reader needs to be trained to think as a Hebrew author would think. In part two (12:15 - 24:15), Tim breaks down some of Jesus' more inflammatory claims, including that “all the things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son reveals him.” Tim says that when Jesus says this it's another way of Jesus proclaiming he is the Son of Man, but he doesn’t use Daniel 7 Son of Man language. Instead, he uses Father/Son language. Jesus is saying that just because people may not recognize who he is, doesn’t change his identity as the Son of Man. Tim says there was a point in Jesus' human development where he became aware of his identity as the Messiah. The only window into this is the short story in Luke where Jesus is twelve years old and wants to stay in the temple because he’s aware of his identity. In part three (24:15- 40:40), Jon asks how ancient Jews thought of the Son of Man coming? Tim says that the Son of Man figure in Daniel 7 inspired a lot of different ideas. Jesus is claiming that he is opening up a way to relate to the God of Israel as “Father.” Tim outlines Matthew 26. The high priest demands to know if Jesus is the Messiah. Tim makes a key distinction. For the Jews, the title Son of Man is much more blasphemous than the title Son of God. To be a Son of God is a royal title that says you’re a descendant of King David. To be the Son of Man means you are claiming divinity, sharing in God’s own identity. Jesus’ response to the high priest is a response from Psalm 110 and Daniel 7. He says “from this moment,” meaning that as soon as he is condemned to death, it is actually the beginning of his installment or coronation as the Son of Man, who will now be sitting at the “right hand of the Father.” Jesus is then given a robe and a crown of thorns and is crucified. This is his coronation as King of the universe. In part four (40:40 -44:35), Tim gives a historical example of “Alexamenos of Rome,” an ancient piece of Roman graffiti depicting Christ being crucified, only in the image he has the head of a donkey. The graffiti is the Romans mocking someone named Alexamenos for worshiping Jesus, saying that it’s completely absurd. Tim offers an example of twenty-one Christians in the Middle East who were slaughtered and beheaded for their faith in Jesus. The apostles would have you believe that while they were being brutally murdered, they were the ones in charge, not their captors. How counterintuitive. In part five (44:35-end), Tim and Jon briefly discuss Christian baptism. Baptisms bookend the book of Matthew. At the beginning, Jesus is baptized, and at the end, he tells his disciples to baptize new believers. Tim says that, unfortunately, baptism has been controversial and divisive in Christian history. Because the apostles didn't seem to be interested in explaining baptism to the degree that it would solve debates about what baptism actually means and symbolizes. Tim says that regardless, all Christians agree that it is an important motif in Christianity. Why? Because you get to identify yourself with the Jesus story, going through the same ritual he did to identify as a child of God. Thank you to all of our supporters! Have a question? Next week is a Q+R. Send it to us! [email protected]. Please keep the audio file to about 20 seconds and let us know your name and where you’re from. Produced By: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins, Matthew Halbert-Howen Show Music: La Rentree Des Classes, Lohstana David Another Chance, Tae the Producer He’s Always There, Tae the Producer Moments, Tae the Producer Defender Instrumental, Tents Show Resources: Check out our video on God here: https://bit.ly/2PyKGwc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode continues our series examining God as a character in the Bible. Today Tim and Jon dive deep into the story of Jesus of Nazareth. In part one (00:00-12:30), Tim outlines the historical path of Jesus. He says that within Jewish culture, Jesus stands unique. For example, in early Christian culture, there were hymns singing songs of praise to Jesus, not just about Jesus. Christians can “praise the name of Jesus” and Paul can use the phrase “maranatha,” which means “our Lord come” in Aramaic. Tim says the point is that Paul can write to a Hebrew or Greek audience with an Aramaic phrase and have it apparently make sense. The significance is that what Jews would have said about Yahweh––“our Lord come”––Christians were then saying about Jesus in Paul’s letters. Tim says that by doing this you are essentially equating Jesus to Yahweh. Tim cites Larry Hurtado and his book One Lord, One God. In part two (12:30-22:45), Tim outlines the most common exalted claim made about Jesus by the first Jewish Christians. It was to use the language of Psalm 110:1-2 combined with Daniel 7. Psalm 110 A poem of David: Yahweh says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” The Lord will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Your enemies.” These lines are the most-quoted Old Testament text in the New Testament. It describes God taking a “master/lord” of King David and placing him on a throne that is next to the divine throne. It’s quoted by Jesus himself inMark 12:36 and 14:62, by the apostles in Acts 2:33-35; 5:31; 7:55-56, and by the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:34; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Ephesians 1:20; 2:6; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2. It's also used in a Jewish context to claim that a human figure had been exalted to share in the divine rule over creation, which was equal to a claim that this figure shares in God’s unique identity. Tim asks the burning historical question: How did this configuration of beliefs and practices come into existence? The New Testament offers an account for the origins of this exalted view of Jesus and their experience of him through the Spirit. In part three (22:45-37:00), Tim lays out more accounts of Jesus and says that Jesus positions himself as “Yahweh returning” from the Old Testament. For example in Mark 1:1-3: “The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way; The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, Make His paths straight.’” “Lord” here is in Greek (kurios), the Greek Septuagint translation of “Yahweh.” In Mark 1:4-8, John the baptist is introduced as the messenger voice in the wilderness. So In Mark 1:9, we’re introduced to Jesus as kurios. Tim continues and says that with Jesus’ baptism, the story is a Father, Son and Spirit love-fest. Mark 1:9-11: "In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens [God as Father]. 'You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.'" Tim says the point is to demonstrate the unity of the triune God. Jesus is sent forth from God/Yahweh in the power of the Spirit. In part four (37:00-end), Tim says after the baptism that Jesus does “Yahweh alone” things, such as forgiving people’s sins. Mark 2:5-7: "And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are forgiven.' But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 'Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?' [lit. “the one God”]" Jon asks about the relationship as a son and father. Why does Jesus call God his father? Tim says it’s not like Yahweh gave birth to Jesus. It carries forward Old Testament ideas that the son, specifically the eldest son, is the chosen one who will carry on the father’s mission. Tim says that while the title “Father” or “my Father” or “our Father” can be confusing to modern readers, Jesus was fundamentally trying to show an intimate, precious relationship between him and Yahweh. Father is used in the Old Testament in Exodus when Yahweh refers to Israel as “my son.” Further, Christians get this language uniquely from Jesus’ own choice of that word to use it to describe Yahweh. Tim says that there is always a point in these type of conversations when things seem mysterious and confusing and people lack language to describe this aspect of God. Tim says he thinks that this is part of the beauty of the topic. Show Resources: Larry Hurtado One Lord, One God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maranatha Our video on God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAvYmE2YYIU&t=3s Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Praise Through The Vall

This is another episode in our series on God’s portrayal as a character in the Bible. In this episode Tim and Jon finally (finally!) begin to talk about Jesus. But in order to talk about him, they need to unpack a confusing phrase in the Bible, “the Son of Man.” What’s the story behind this phrase? It comes from a famous vision from Daniel chapter 7. In part one (00:00-19:45), the guys quickly review their conversation so far. Tim reiterates that God’s portrayal in the Bible is extremely complex, and that’s on purpose because God is complex. The biblical writers want to leave the reader with a sense of mystery about God’s identity. Jon says that it’s fundamentally impossible to completely understand a being that is other than you. Tim shares a quote from biblical scholar Mehrdad Fatehi, saying that for the biblical authors, “Yahweh cannot be reduced to any one of the manifestations of his presence (Word, Spirit, Wisdom, Angel, etc.). Yahweh is not completely identified with any one of these, but rather dynamically related. Yahweh is the Spirit, in so far as he is relating himself to creation. This is why the biblical writers prefer to speak of Yahweh’s 'spirit,' or 'arm,' or 'glory,' or 'word,' rather than to refer to God himself in a more direct way. By adopting such a procedure, they manage both to express the objective reality of God’s contact with his creation, and at the same time maintain that God himself is always greater than any specific act of revealing himself to someone.” -- Mehrdad Fatehi, The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul’s Letters, 57-58. In part two (19:45-38:10), Tim introduces the dream that Daniel has. He notes the design of the book of Daniel by saying that Daniel’s dream is related to the other dreams and events in the book. The dream begins in verse 7:9-10: I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire. 10 “A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; The court sat, And the books were opened. 7:11-12: The super-beast is killed and thrown into the fire before the throne Daniel 7:13-14: I kept looking in the night visions And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of human was coming, And he came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. “And to him was given dominion, glory and ba kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and languages Might serve (or “worship”) Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. Who is this Son of Man? Jon asks if it’s a physical child. Tim explains that it's actually biblical imagery to depict a class of being. This is a “son” similar to the “sons of the prophets/Elijah” depicted in the Old Testament. Tim says the point of the vision is that Daniel represents a summary of the future hope of the Hebrew Bible, and it envisions the coming of God’s Kingdom as the coming of a human figure (“a son of humanity”), who will sit beside God, share in his rule over the beasts (remember the plural “thrones”), and receive worship from all nations. In part three (38:10-end), Tim says that the Christian claim of God existing “three in one” and the divine complexity is a thoroughly Jewish idea, but Jews have long debated who the actual "Son of Man" is. Tim says there’s a ancient Jewish author called Ezekiel the Tragedian, who believed that the vision of Daniel’s Son of Man was actually referring to Moses. Tim also says that it’s clear that the New Testament authors believed Jesus is the Son of Man, and they combine all of God’s attributes (word, spirit, wisdom, etc) with the idea of a human being elevated to God’s status. Thank you to all of our supporters! Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Praise Through The Valley, Tae the Producer Moments, Tae the Producer Show Produced By: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Resources: Mehrdad Fatehi, The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul’s Letters, 57-58. Ezekiel the Tragedian, "Exagoge" See: http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/OT/EzekielTheTragedian.html www.thebibleproject.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is a special episode in our series exploring the portrayal of God as a character in the Bible! In this episode, Tim and Jon host a friend of the Bible Project’s, Dr. Michael Heiser. Dr Heiser is a Ph.D. in Hebrew studies from the University of Wisconsin. He’s a well-published author whose work has been mentioned on this podcast before. He also runs his own podcast called “The Naked Bible Podcast”. In part 1 (0-18:05), the guys begin to talk about God’s “name”. This is a motif that is found throughout Scripture. Tim says that the Old Testament well primes the observant reader to expect an incarnation of God. The guys zero in on the commandment to not take God’s name in vain. “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord God in vain.” What does this actually mean? Is it about cussing or something more? Dr. Heiser says the commandment is much more significant than most modern readers think. Tim shares a quote from Gerhard Von Rad’s Old Testament Theology. “The name Yahweh was committed in trust to Israel alone among the nations… In it alone lay the guarantee of Yahweh’s nearness and of his readiness to help… This name shared directly in Yahweh’s own holiness, for indeed it was, so to speak, a double of his being. And so it had to be treated as holy in the very heart of Israel’s worship, to 'call on the name of Yahweh' was equivalent to true worship.” -- Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1, p. 183. Dr. Heiser says that to represent someone’s name is a big deal. He says that to “not take the name in vain” would be better translated to, “do not misrepresent the name." In part 2 (18:05- 33:00), the guys dive into more stories of God’s name. Dr. Heiser makes a point that God incarnating happens repeatedly in the Old Testament, so it was expected that God would incarnate in the New Testament as the Messiah. Heiser says the question for an ancient Hebrew was not, "Is it possible for God to incarnate in a human?" but rather, "Is Jesus the chosen one whom God has incarnated in?" The guys zero in on some stories of the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. Dr. Heiser says that in the Exodus 23, the Angel has God’s name “in him”. Then in Joshua 5, “the ruler of the Lord’s army” or “captain of the hosts of the Lord” appears to Joshua. Joshua is told to remove his shoes, for the ground is holy. This is the same language that appears in the story of Moses and the burning bush. In the burning bush story, it is the angel that is in the bush. Dr. Heiser says this is the same figure in all the stories. The angel is both an angel and Yahweh, yet is distinct from Yahweh. In part 3 (33:00-44:30) Tim and Dr. Heiser continue to make the point that God was known to incarnate in physical form. Dr. Heiser references Dr. Alan Segal, saying that ancient Judaism had a duality in it. God could be both Yahweh and distinct from Yahweh. Tim refers to Jesus’ brothers who didn’t believe Jesus was the Son of God when he was alive, but after his resurrection they did. Tim and Dr. Heiser also refer to John 17. Dr. Heiser says that when Jesus claims to have “manifested God’s name” he is claiming in other words, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Jesus is the one who carried the name faithfully, doing the job Israel was supposed to. Tim says the claim being made in John 17 is behind the whole universe being in unity, a community of eternal love. In part 4 (44:30-end) The guys talk about the “name” or the “mark” of the beast in the book of Revelation. Dr. Heiser says this is also much more significant than modern readers realize. To carry the name of the beast means to have a willful alignment with evil. Jon comments that he still feels a little confused. “The name” of God operates so complexly. Dr. Heiser says this is intentional and that there is a whole “matrix of ideas” in the Bible. A key to reading the Bible well is to understand how the vocabulary used in the Bible all interconnects. Show Resources: Gerhard von Rad, "Old Testament Theology," Vol. 1, p. 183. Peter Ellis, "The Genius of John: A Composition-Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel" Michael Heiser, "The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible" and "Angels: What the Bible Really Says about God's Heavenly Hosts" Show Music: Defender Instrumental: Tents Faith: Tae the Producer In the Distance: Tae the Producer Moments: Tae the Producer Show Produced by: Dan Gummel. Jon Collins. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is our third Q+R in our God series. Thank you to everyone who sent in questions! Tim and Jon discussed four of the questions we received. Here are the questions and timestamps: Q1: (1:05) Bryce from Chicago I'm currently studying in Chicago at the Moody Bible Institute. A bunch of guys from my floor were watching the Season 5 premiere, and we had a specific question for the God series: How does God's interaction with the world, that is, wanting to co-rule with celestial and terrestrial creatures, relate to God's transcendence and sovereignty? And to all of you at The Bible Project, your work is inspiring and helpful every day––thanks so much! Q2: (11:42) Linda from Portland, Oregon I've heard a Tim Keller podcast sermon on Abraham's conversion with the three visitors he entertains in his tent before they go down to bring judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah as being an intercession like the one between Moses and God. Can you comment on how this earlier Abraham story contributes to the intercession paradigm you talk about from the example of Moses? Q3: (25:15) Brian from Cleveland In God E7, you mentioned Christopher Wright's commentary and explanation of Moses' intercession and the purpose of the narrative. Moses is counting God's consistency despite God's threat. When God relents or changes His mind, He's actually showing Himself to be consistent. My question is this: Is something similar happening in Genesis 22 when Abraham is asked to sacrifice Isaac? There's no explicit mention of Abraham praying or interceding, but his faith in God's consistency is evident. Thanks! Q4: (43:45) Maggie from Wisconsin Tim said that people that are interested in the spiritual realm today usually disconnect it from the political power structures, even though the biblical authors saw the two as intertwined/mirrors. However, it seems that the majority of the demons that Jesus was casting out within the New Testament were in individuals that were not politically powerful people. Show Resources: Archie Wright, "The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1-4 in Early Jewish Literature" Clinton Wahlen, "Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels" Brian Doak, "The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of Ancient Israel" Michael Heiser, "The Unseen Realm." Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Show Produced By: Dan Gummel Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode continues our series on the development of God as a character in the Bible. This week Tim and Jon have part two of their conversation on God’s attributes used as a character. They discuss God’s Spirit, God’s wisdom, and God’s word. In part one (0 - 33:05), the guys briefly recap last week’s discussion on “God’s Glory.” Then Tim outlines the attribute of God’s word. Tim outlines the first story where “God’s word” is used. Genesis 15:1: "After these things the word of Yahweh came to Abram in a vision, saying, 'Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great.'" “The word” is the subject of the verbs (“came” “spoke”). it is “seen” in a vision, and it speaks in first-person divine speech. Tim says that often this nuance gets overlooked, that God’s word appeared in visible form. It’s depicted as a character that can appear to someone. Tim says the point is that often times the weird wording is intentional and should not be overlooked. Tim shares another story in the Old Testament about God’s word. 1 Samuel 3:1-7: "Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the Lord before Eli. And the word of Yahweh was rare in those days, visions were infrequent… and Samuel was lying down in the temple of Yahweh where the ark of God was… then Yahweh called Samuel; and he said, 'Here I am.' Then he ran to Eli and said, 'Here I am, for you called me.' But he said, 'I did not call, lie down again.' So he went and lay down. Now Samuel did not yet know Yahweh, nor had the word of Yahweh yet been revealed [lit. “made visible”] to him…. Then Yahweh came and stood and called as at other times, 'Samuel! Samuel!' And Samuel said, 'Speak, for Your servant is listening.'" Tim shares a final story on God’s word. Jeremiah 1:1-9: “The words of Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah...to whom the word of Yahweh came… [v.4] Now the word of Yahweh came to me saying, 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…' [v.6] Then I said 'O Yahweh Elohim, I don’t know how to speak, I’m just a youth…' [v.7] Then Yahweh said to me, 'Don’t say ‘I’m just a youth…’' [v.9] Then Yahweh stretched out his hand and touched my mouth and Yahweh said to me, 'Look I have put my words in your mouth.'" Tim says the point is that in all of these passages, Yahweh and Yahweh’s word are the same, and yet distinct. Yahweh’s word is a physical embodiment (it can appear, be seen, it has hands, etc.). So in light of all of this new information, let’s go back to Genesis 1:1-3: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God spoke, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness." God’s identity has three facets in this opening scene: God, God’s ruakh (breath, invisible presence), and God's word. Tim then draws attention to Psalm 33:6, 9: “By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, all their hosts by the ruakh of his mouth… For he spoke, and it was, He commanded, and it stood.” Tim moves on to discuss God’s Spirit. God’s Spirit is his invisible personal presence, that is God himself as he is experienced by people and personally present in the world. God’s Spirit influences and works through human agents, especially these type of people in the Bible: Prophets: Micah 3:8: "On the other hand I am filled with power—with the Spirit of Yahweh—and with justice and courage, to make known to Jacob his rebellious act, even to Israel his sin." Kings: 1 Samuel 16:13: "Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of Yahweh came mightily upon David from that day forward." Wise people: Genesis 41:38-39: (Joseph) “Pharaoh said to his servants, 'Where else can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of Gods? … There is no one with wisdom or understanding like him.'” Artists and Leaders: Exodus 31:1-4: (Bezalel) “Then Yahweh said to Moses, 'Look I have chosen Bezalel...and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom and understanding, with knowledge and skills, to make designs in gold and silver…'" Deuteronomy 34:9: (Joshua) “Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the Spirit of Wisdom.” God’s Spirit = the divine thoughts and purposes = “mind” Isaiah 40:13-14: "Who has measured the ruakh of Yahweh, And who has informed him with advice? With whom did He take counsel, to be given knowledge? Who taught him...knowledge, or who informed him with understanding?" Notice this close connection between God's Spirit and God’s wisdom. Jon makes a fun analogy by pretending he’s a gerbil. If he was a gerbil and he were to see Tim as a human, he would only understand limited ways that Tim interacted with him. So similarly, when biblical authors experienced God through one of his attributes, they recognized that it wasn't God in his

This episode continues our series on the development of God as a character in the Bible! Today Tim and Jon zoom in on a confusing part of the Bible: God’s attributes, specifically, God’s name, glory, word, spirit, and wisdom. Today Tim and Jon will be covering the first two attributes, God’s name and his glory. In part one (0-7:15), Tim outlines God’s name in the Bible. Think of God’s name as his “reputation,” and his name is a big deal in the Bible. Tim briefly outlines and says that God’s attributes take on a life of their own. Literally. The attributes play a similar role in the story of the bible that the Angel of Yahweh does. The attribute can be both distinct from and be Yahweh. Tim says that the first time God’s name is revealed in the Bible is at the burning bush in the story of Moses in Exodus 3. God reveals his divine name to Moses, and it is utterly unique and undefinable: “I am who I am.” Yahweh = he is who he is. Tim shares a quote from scholar Gerhard Von Rad: “The name Yahweh was committed in trust to Israel alone among the nations… In it alone lay the guarantee of Yahweh’s nearness and of his readiness to help… This name shared directly in Yahweh’s own holiness, for indeed it was, so to speak, a double of his being. And so it had to be treated as holy in the very heart of Israel’s worship, to 'call on the name of Yahweh' was equivalent to true worship.” Von Rad Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1, p. 183. In part two (7:15-25:55), Tim continues and says that in Deuteronomy we see a fascinating repeated phrase. Moses says that when Israel crosses into the promised land, God will lead them to set up a place of worship, a temple: Deuteronomy 12:4 says, “You are to worship at the place Yahweh your God will choose from among all the tribes to place his name there for it to dwell/take up residence. That’s where you will seek him and go there.” Deuteronomy 12:11 says, “And the place where Yahweh your God chooses to cause his name to dwell, that’s where you will bring your offerings…” Tim says the point is that the unique name of Yahweh in this phrase is personified like a person or being who “lives/dwells” in the temple. Tim moves on and outlines another attribute, God’s glory. God’s kavod = the physical manifestation of God’s important status. Tim highlights Exodus 24:9-11 and God's glory on Mount Sinai. "Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under his feet there appeared to be a pavement platform of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet he did not stretch out his hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank." While this passage doesn’t use the word kavod, they see a physical manifestation of God. This isn’t the only story of a physical manifestation of God. In 1 Kings 22:19, the prophet Micaiah says, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right and on his left." Then again in Isaiah 6:1-3, "In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of his robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said: “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of gis glory (kavod).” Tim says the point is that there is uniformity in these stories. Everyone sees a glorious seated royal figure. Then Tim expands the point with a crazy story in Ezekiel chapter 1. “Now it came about in the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was by the river Chebar among the exiles, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God... As I looked, behold, a storm wind was coming from the north, a great cloud with fire flashing forth continually and a bright light around it, and in its midst something like glowing metal in the midst of the fire. Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like a platform (Hebrew word, raqia, from Genesis 1), like the awesome gleam of crystal, spread out over their heads. Now above the platform that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like sapphire in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a human. Then I noticed from the appearance of his loins and upward something like glowing metal that looked like fire all around within it, and from the appearance of his loins and downward I saw something like fire; and there was a radiance around him. As the appearance of the rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the surrounding radiance. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yahweh. And when I saw it, I fell on my face and heard a voice speaking." Tim’s point is that the Ezekiel story is a culmination

In part one (0:00-7:35), Tim outlines the biblical authors' idea that God is totally transcendent and above creation, but they also work hard to show that God gets involved in human activities through mediators. Tim briefly mentions that there are a lot of old Hebrew traditions surrounding different beings like “the watchers.” These figures are often portrayed in movies like the new Noah movie by Darren Aronofsky. and much of the literature written about them comes from other Hebrew literature and tradition. In part two (7:35-17:25), Tim says that the Hebrew word “malak” means “messenger,” and it's the word used for “angel.” In the New Testament, the Greek word “aggelos” is used, which is then translated as “angel.” Jon asks if they have wings, and Tim says there is no winged angel depicted in the Bible. Tim says there’s a particular elohim/spiritual being depicted in the Bible that is called “malak Yahweh,” or “messenger of Yahweh.” One notable appearance of this character is in the story of Hagar in Genesis 21. The story starts out with Hagar conversing with the Angel of the Lord, but then later she says she had conversed with God (Yahweh). Jon asks if this is a sign of the literary seams of different sources as this story was told throughout the years. Tim says this is possible, but he also wonders if it’s intentional. Is the Angel of Yahweh Yahweh, or is it distinct from Yahweh? Tim thinks it's both. Tim mentions the story in Exodus 23. Yahweh says, “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my name is in him.” Jon asks what it means to have Yahweh’s name in someone. Tim says this is a really unique phrase in the Bible. Tim thinks the point is that there’s a balance beam the biblical authors are walking. They want to present Yahweh as distinct from the Angel of God, but also they can be the same. In part three (17:25-26:55), Tim outlines the story of Gideon in Judges 6:11-23. "The Angel of the Lord came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. When the Angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, he said, 'The Lord is with you, mighty warrior.' 'Pardon me, my lord,' Gideon replied, 'but if the Lord is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the Lord has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.' The Lord turned to him and said, 'Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?' 'Pardon me, my lord,' Gideon replied, 'but how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family.' The Lord answered, 'I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites, leaving none alive.' Gideon replied, 'If now I have found favor in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me. Please do not go away until I come back and bring my offering and set it before you.' And the Lord said, 'I will wait until you return.' Gideon went inside, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to him under the oak. The Angel of God said to him, 'Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth.' And Gideon did so. Then the Angel of the Lord touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of the staff that was in his hand. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the Angel of the Lord disappeared. When Gideon realized that it was the Angel of the Lord, he exclaimed, 'Alas, Sovereign Lord! I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face!' But the Lord said to him, 'Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.'" In this story, the character keeps alternating between “the Lord” and “the Angel of the Lord.” Why is this? Is this just lazy writing, or is it a biblical contradiction? Tim says he thinks this is a strange story on purpose. Tim thinks that this is a human figure that can appear, a figure that is Yahweh but also distinct from Yahweh. The point of this story is to form a mental shelf in the reader's mind that there is a human figure, a messenger who acts as God and also on behalf of God. This figure has “my name in Him,” according to Exodus 23. In Part four (26:55-end), Tim outlines the history of the ideas surrounding this figure. Some traditions and scholars think that this figure is Michael, archangel or chief angel. Tim says there’s a book called “The Apocalypse of Abraham.” It's a second temple Jewish text that tries to give more background on this figure. In that text the figure is called

Show Notes: This is our 100th podcast episode! We hosted a live Q+R before an audience of our friends and supporters in our studios in Portland, Oregon. We also had our good friends, the band Tents, play our podcast theme music live for us. You can find the video release of this Q+R here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh2Xwja6M4s Tim and Jon responded to three questions: Q1: (7:40) Parker from Twitter: Why does God in Genesis 1 say let us make humanity in "our" image instead of saying let us make humanity in "my" image if he is speaking to the divine council? And how does this affect the imago dei? Q2: (22:04) Andrew from Nottingham, UK: Does an emphasis on the heavenly council lead people away from a trinitarian view of God and rather see Jesus as one of the lesser elohim? For instance, from my limited understanding, that's how Jehovah's Witnesses view. Thanks for everything you do I find it really helpful! Q3: (29:30) Ryan Craycraft from Middletown, Ohio: Tim, you mentioned that elohim only refers to a non-physical spiritual being. However when reading John 10:34-35, when being accused of blasphemy by the Jews for making Himself God, Jesus appears to quote Psalm 82, "Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods," when speaking directly to Jews. What is your take on Jesus' response here? And how do both the Scriptures of John 10 and Psalm 82 relate to elohim used in Exodus 22, where the word "judges" was translated from elohim? Thank you so much! Thank you to all of our supporters! Music by Tents Learn more about Tents here: https://www.facebook.com/tentsband/ Get all sorts of free resources at www.thebibleproject.com Here are the two videos we released in our season five premier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1zkwkI9oAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9W5afjndtU Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins, Matthew Halbert-Howen Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode continues our series on the development of the character of God in the Bible. In this episode, the guys discuss one of the strangest stories in the Bible: Israel and the golden calf in Exodus 32. In part one (00:00-09:45), the guys review the idea that God primarily interacts with the world through a human mediator. Understanding how God interacted with Israel through Moses is key to understanding this important theme in the Bible. Tim points out that in the Old Testament, the two most important personal portraits to understand are David and Moses. They are the two people who get the most page length in the Old Testament. Tim says that Moses' story should be creating a role, an expectation that the world would be a better place if there were more Moses-like characters who are intimately tied with Yahweh. In part two (09:45-21:20), the guys talk about the story of the golden calf in Exodus 32. Moses represents Israel to God and he represents God to Israel. Tim points out a strange detail of the story. God says he wants to destroy Israel, but then it seems as though God changes his mind after Moses implored him to reconsider. Tim says this story has puzzled all Bible readers over thousands of years. Does God change his mind based on human input? Tim quotes from biblical scholar Christopher Wright's commentary on Deuteronomy: “This story explores the mystery about prayer in general and intercession in particular, and raises questions: Was God really serious in this declared threat? If Moses had not interceded, would God have carried out the destruction of Israel? If God was not really planning to destroy the people (10:10b), did God only “pretend” to listen to Moses’ prayer? Did Moses actually change God’s mind? It seems important first of all to say that there is not much point in wrestling with alternative hypothetical scenarios posed by such questions. Asking “what if” serves little theological purpose. Both God and Moses appear to be behaving straightforwardly. There is nothing in the text to suggest that God’s anger was overdone for mere effect; no suggestion that God’s threat was a bluff intended to secure a hasty repentance. The threat of destruction was real. Likewise, Moses’ reaction to the divine wrath was not a patronizing dismissal of authority, like saying, “You can’t be serious!” Rather, Moses recognized that this was a sincere threat that could be countered only with appeal to prior words and actions of the same God. The paradox is that in appealing to God to change, he was actually appealing to God to be consistent —which may be a significant clue to the dynamic of all genuine intercessory prayer. Yet perhaps there is a hint of the divine intention in God’s fascinating words, Leave me alone… (v. 14). The discussion of this line in Jewish scholarship has sensed deep meaning here. After all, God need not have spoken such words, or indeed any words at all, to Moses. In wrath God could have acted “immediately” without informing or consulting Moses in any way. God pauses and makes the divine will “vulnerable” to human challenge. The fact is that, far from human intercession being an irritating but occasionally successful intrusion upon divinely prefabricated blueprints for history, Moses’ prayer becomes an integral part of the way God’s sovereignty in history is exercised. That does not totally solve the mystery, but it puts it in its proper biblical perspective. God not only allows human intercession, God invites it and builds it into the decision-making processes of the heavenly council in ways we can never fathom. “God takes Moses’ contribution with utmost seriousness; God’s acquiescence to the arguments indicates that God treats the conversation with Moses with integrity and honors the human insight as an important ingredient for the shaping of the future” Intercessory prayer, then, flows primarily not from human anxiety about God but from God’s commitment to covenant relationship with human beings…. Moses was not so much arguing against God, as participating in an argument within God. Such prayer, therefore, not only participates in the pain of God in history, but is actually invited to do so for God’s sake as well as ours. This is a measure of the infinite value to God of commitment to persons in covenant relationship. The Point: The figure of Moses in the Torah creates a portrait of the kind of figure necessary for God and humanity to exist together in successful covenant relationship. Moses’ eventual failure in the wilderness (Numbers ch. 21) disqualifies him for the role he filled. His story creates a “Help Wanted” sign in the biblical narrative.” In part three (21:20-33:30), the guys continue to discuss the story of the golden calf. Jon summarizes Tim’s position. Tim draws another parallel to the story of the great flood in Genesis. God destroys all of humanity except for Noah and his family. Then God says that “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the inten

In part 1 (0-20:20), Tim shares a insight from biblical scholar Richard Baukham. Baukham outlines the differences between ancient Judiasm and other ancient religions of that time period. Specifically a “Binary view” vs. a “gradient view” of reality. A “gradient view” can be characterized as: polytheistic worldviews (like Israel’s ancient neighbors, and the Greek and Roman world) draw distinctions of degree between the most powerful divine being and other divine beings and humans. A “binary view” can be characterized, by looking at this quote from Richard Baukman “Monotheism understands the uniqueness of the one God in terms of an absolute difference in kind from all other reality. We could call it ‘transcendent uniqueness… understanding the uniqueness of the God of Israel as that of the one Creator of all things and the one sovereign Ruler of all things. In ancient Judaism, this binary distinction between their God and all other reality was observed and promoted by monolotry -- their worship and allegiance and prayers were offered only to the one God of Israel. In a gradient worldview, many beings are accorded honor, to the degree appropriate to their rank on the cosmic scale. Judaism turned their monolotry into a powerful symbol of exclusive monotheism.” -- Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 109. Why is this important? Because a binary view of reality eventually sets the stage for Israel’s belief that God can be both transcendent and personally knowable. And the biblical authors paint a picture of God who can be relatable to the world most often through a human mediator, but at the same time can be utterly unknowable. Tim says that these overarching thoughts set the stage for Christian beliefs like the incarnation and the trinity. In part 2 (20:20-25:20), Tim outlines “God’s complex relationship with the world”. When you pick up the Bible you first notice that God is portrayed as very relatable, with human like qualities. In Genesis, God is portrayed as walking around the garden. Other times, God’s attributes becomes personified, his wisdom, his justice etc all have stories where they act as a character. In part 3 (25:20-40:00), Tim outlines portrayals of God through humans. When Genesis starts, God self limits himself by willingly wanting to partner with humans who are made in his image and commissioned to rule the world on his behalf. What’s the problem with that? Humans rebel. But God continues to work through humans who he uses to accomplish his purposes. The first person that is a great example of this is Moses. When God calls Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3, God says he will deliver Israel out of Egypt, but then he tells Moses to go do it. Tim says this is a good example, that most stories in the Bible show God acting through a person, or a mediator and its actually very rare to see God doing something without a mediator. In part 4 (40:00-end), Tim expands on this point by illustrating the biblical theme of “God’s outstretched arm”. Where does this image come from? Does God actually have an arm? Tim says this theme starts in the plagues in Egypt (Exodus 7). “Then Yahweh said to Moses… “Go to Pharaoh in the morning as he is going out to the water, stand on the bank and take in your hand the staff… and say “Thus says Yahweh the God of the Hebrews, ‘By this you will know that I am Yahweh, with the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile and it will turn to blood.’ Then Moses did as Yahweh commanded… he lifted up the staff and struck the water in the Nile. Tim says the point is Moses arm with the staff = Yahweh’s arm. Moses’ physical actions become merged with Yahweh’s actions. Moses is not God. Moses is an image of God. Jon says that this is really interesting because it seems that Moses is becoming conformed to the image of God, their seems to be a fusion of God and Moses. It makes Moses truly human and brings justice and life for the Israelite slaves in Egypt. Thank you to all our supporters! Show Resources: Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel. Show Produced By: Dan Gummel. Jon Collins. Matthew Halbert Howen Show Music: He’s Always There - Tae the Producer Eden - Tae the Producer Another Chance - Tae the Producer Defender Instrumental - Rosasharn Music Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is our first full Q+R for our ongoing podcast series on the development of the character of “God” in the Bible. Thank you to all of our listeners who sent in questions! Have a question? Send it in to [email protected]. Don’t forget to give us your name and where you’re from. Tim and Jon responded to four questions. (0:40) Felipe from Brazil: “Hi Tim and Jon! My name is Felipe. I am from Brazil, and my question concerns the rebellion of the Sons of God in Genesis 6. Supposing this story talks about actual divine beings as opposed to human kings, do we know for sure the author’s version of the story is the same as 1 Enoch’s, that the divine beings had actual sex with human girls and had actual super-human kids?” (36:12) Bradley from Kentucky: “A passage that's always been interesting to me is 1 Samuel 16:14, where God sends an evil spirit to torment Saul. It's connected to a passage you mentioned in 1 Kings 22, one of the only other places where this spirit type is mentioned. I was just wondering how your understanding of the Divine Council helps us understand God's sovereignty through this passage.” (42:20) Jeremy from California: “I'm hoping you can shed some light on Luke 10: 17-20. This is the passage where the 72 disciples return from preaching and report to Jesus that even the demons submit to them in his name. Jesus then responds by alluding to Isaiah 14 regarding the fall of the king of Babylon, but he connects it to the fall of Satan. What's going on here? Does this passage refer back to the fall of the Elohim you mentioned that takes place in the early chapters of Genesis? And does this confirm that "The Satan" is the chief of all of the fallen Elohim just like the king of Babylon is the chief of fallen rulers?” (1:04:52) John from Houston: “My question is about the term "Son of God" and how that is used in the New Testament. If we look at Romans 8, we can see that we can accept adoption as sons of God in relation to the only begotten son of God, but this seems like a totally different usage of what you guys described from Genesis. So is there any connection that can be made there?” Show Resources: Check out all our resources at www.thebibleproject.com Show Produced By: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins, Matthew Halbert-Howen. Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Rosasharn Music Thank you to all our supporters! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In part one (00:00-14:00), the guys quickly go over the previous three episodes on God and identify one of the shortcomings of those discussions. Mainly, they never discuss the origin of the other Elohim/gods/ spiritual beings in the Bible. Where do they come from? Where and how are they created? Tim begins to outline an idea to explain the origin story of the other Elohim, and it starts where everything else starts in the Bible––Genesis 1. Tim explains that there is no wasted or careless word, phrase, or idea placed in the creation story. Tim zeroes in on the “lights” created in Genesis 1 in the heavens. On day four of creation, “the great light” and “the lesser light” are created. Tim’s point is that these lights have roles to play in creation; they are for “signs and symbols.” "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,' and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day." – Genesis 1:14-19 In part two (14:00-54:17), Tim continues to expand the analogy. His point is that in the ancient Hebrew worldview, the sun, moon, and stars were very central in their worldview. To the Hebrews, they were symbols of Yahweh’s love and rule. Tim explains how this is supported in passages like Psalm 36. "Your lovingkindness, O Lord, extends to the heavens, Your faithfulness reaches to the skies. Your righteousness is like the mountains of God; Your judgments are like a great deep. O Lord, You preserve man and beast. How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings. They drink their fill of the abundance of Your house; And You give them to drink of the river of Your delights. For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light." – Psalm 36:5-9 Tim says that verse 9 is important. The Hebrews believed that physical light (photons, electromagnetic, waves, etc) is a symbol, a representation of the creator behind it. Jon says he is struggling to understand this. Tim expands on the point by illustrating that in the new creation, John says, “the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.” – Revelation 21:23. Tim goes back to Genesis 1, saying that it’s important to understand that God is delegating authority to the “lights” (sun, moon, and stars) by giving them authority to rule in the heavens. Tim says only two things are given ruling ability in the creation story: humans on earth, who are God’s image to rule on the earth, and the lights in the heavens, that are God’s symbols to rule in the heavens. Jon remarks that he has never seen this idea in the creation story of Genesis before. Tim says that he thinks the biblical authors believed that the “lights in the heavens” were “spiritual beings,” so the other Elohim would have been created and given authority when God created the “lights in the heavens” in Genesis 1. Tim makes a distinction saying that whereas an ancient Canaanite or Egyptian would have worshiped the actual sun, moon, and stars and have heavy habits of astrology, the Hebrews would have insisted that the being to worship is the being behind it all, Yahweh. Tim makes an additional point that in Genesis 1, humans are the ultimate symbol of the divine, whereas the stars are symbols. Tim says this can be seen in Psalm 8. "Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory in the heavens. Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet: all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild, the birds in the sky, and the fish in the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!" – Psalm 8:1-9 Tim offers Genesis 6 as a recount of the spiritual rebellion where the “sons of god” rebel by taking human women. In Psalm 82, God confronts the Divine Council. "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: 'How long will you judge unjus

This is episode three in our series outlining the development of the character of God in the Bible! In this show, Tim and Jon walk through the big ideas of the “Divine Council” and spiritual warfare. In part one (00:00-23:40), Tim outlines a strange story in 1 Kings 22:19 about the prophet Micaiah. Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left." Jon asks what a “host” is in the Bible. Tim explains that "host" is used to describe an army or a set of advisers. Tim says the point is that God is depicted as a military captain with a set of lower ranking officers. This theme continues in other passages like Job 1:6 and 7:6. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and the satan also came among them." "The Lord said to Satan, 'From where do you come?' Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” Jon asks who are the "sons of God are. Tim explains that it is a turn of phrase used to represent a class of spiritual beings. Followers of Old Testament prophets were often called “sons,” not to demonstrate physical sonship, but to demonstrate a sort of relationship where the greater power was in a position of authority over a lesser power. Tim says the point is that the Bible portrays God as having a sort of staff team, or mediators, that do his bidding in order to interact with the world. This is God’s “divine council.” In part two (23:40-49:48), Tim outlines a very strange section in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 When the Most High [Yahweh] allotted the nations, and set the divisions for the sons of humanity, He fixed the territories of peoples According to the number of sons of God [Heb. sons of elohim] For Yahweh’s portion is his people Jacob his own allotment. Tim says there is a large biblical scholarship debate over the interpretation of this passage. To explain this passage, Tim quotes from Jefferey Tigay: “Deuteronomy 32:8-9 refers to an early tradition, that when God was allotting nations to the delegated authority of other divine beings, he made the same number of nations and territories as there were such beings. Verse 9 implies that He then assigned the other nations to those divine beings, and states explicitly that He kept Israel for Himself. This seems to be part of a concept hinted at elsewhere in the Bible and in postbiblical literature. When God organized the government of the world, He established two tiers: at the top, He Himself, “God of gods (ʾelohei ha-ʾelohim) and Lord of lords” (Deut 10:17), who reserved Israel for Himself, to govern personally; below Him, seventy angelic “divine beings” (sons of ʾelohim), to whom He allotted the other peoples. The conception is like that of a king or emperor governing the capital or heartland of his realm personally and assigning the provinces to subordinates.” Jon seems flabbergasted. God put other gods in charge of other nations? Jon asks how this view can be reconciled with actual knowledge of world history and human development. Tim says this is a theme in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy 4:16-19, Moses says to Israel, “Don’t act corruptly and make a image for yourselves in the form of any figure… And don’t lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. But the Lord has taken you...to be a people for His own possession, as today." Tim says this hints at a concept in Hebrew culture that portrayed a spiritual rebellion against God that coincided with a human rebellion. Tim says the human rebellion is told in detail in the Bible, but the spiritual rebellion is only hinted at. The complex story of the “sons of God” sleeping with human women in Genesis 6 could be viewed as them going into rebellion and crossing a line. Tim says this theme reaches its culmination in the Old Testament in the book of Daniel and the story of the Prince of Persia. In part three (49:48-1:01:26), Tim says the Jesus carries these themes of other elohim forward into the New Testament. The greek word for “demon” in the New Testament is connected to the word “daimonion” (δαιμόνιον). Demon is a word that means “demi” or lesser god. In Hebrew categories, it would be a son of elohim. Tim says he has a tough time reconciling this with a western “rational” worldview. He says Jesus and the authors of the New Testament clearly believed in a world that included unseen spiritual forces. Tim says that the New Testament passage in Ephesians 6, referring to the "armor of God," shouldn’t be appropriated as passages about spiritual warfare of demonic attack; rather, they should be seen as warnings against elevating differences above unity in the body of Ch

This is episode 2 in our series discussing the character and theme development of “God” in the Bible. In part 1, (0-17:25) the guys discuss the meaning of Monotheism in the Bible and Ancient Judaism. Tim offers a modern definition of monotheism as - “The belief or doctrine that there is only one God” -- Dictionary.com Tim says this is different than an ancient definition because last week, we’ve already seen that the biblical authors do not believe there’s only one Elohim. Rather, Biblical/Jewish Monotheism could be defined as = “The belief that there is one supreme Elohim (Creator and Ruler) who has no rivals among all other Elohim: Yahweh the God of Israel.” So, Tim offers resources for more accurate definitions of what the ancient Hebrews believed. William Horbury has proposed a nuanced definition: Inclusive Monotheism: Yahweh is the supreme deity in association with other divine spirits and powers. Exclusive Monotheism: Denies the existence of any divine beings other than Yahweh. However, there is no evidence that any ancient Israelites or Jews or Christians believed in that definition of “Exclusive Monotheism.” In part 2, (17:25-end) Tim continues to express his frustration with the current definition of exclusive monotheism. Tim cites several Old Testament examples. (NIV) Deuteronomy 4:35 “You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; beside him, there is no other.” In Hebrew it literally says …”know that Yahweh, he is the Elohim, there is not another besides him.” In these passages, Elohim has the Hebrew word “the” attached (ha-elohim), which means the claim being made is that Yahweh alone is the chief God, not that Yahweh is the only elohim that exists. Tim cites Michael Heiser on this point saying “ A close reading of these passages in Deuteronomy and Isaiah shows… that the denials are not claiming that other אֱלֹהִים (elohim) do not exist, but that Yahweh’s has unique and incomparable qualities in relation to other gods: Yahweh’s pre-existence, his role as creator of all things, including other elohim, his ability to save, and national deliverance. The focus is on Yahweh’s incomparable status and the impotence of the other gods. It would be empty praise to compare Yahweh to beings that did not exist. The biblical authors assume they do exists, but that they are “nothing” compared to Yahweh.” -- Michael Heiser, “The Divine Council,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Next week on the show, Tim and Jon discuss “The Divine Council” It will be an exciting and mind-bending episode! Show Resources: William Horbury, "Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age." Paul Jouon & T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew Michael Heiser, “The Divine Council,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Michael Heiser: The Naked Bible Podcast Psalms 97:9 Show Music: Defender Instrumental: Rosasharn Music Another Chance: Tae The Producer Produced by: Dan Gummel. Jon Collins. Matthew Halbert Howen. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is our first episode in our new series on the Bible’s portrayal of God! We are currently working on a theme video about God that will be released later in 2018. In part 1, (0-8:33) Tim overviews the whole subject. He says later on in the discussion they will talk about the Trinity in the Bible, but for now, they will just focus on the development of the word God in the Bible. In part 2, (8:33-37:34) Tim outlines the problems of modern conceptions with God compared with ancient Hebrew conceptions of God. Tim says that it comes down to how people use the word ‘God’. Today people use the word ‘God’ to refer to a personal being that exists. ‘God’ is both a title for a kind of being and a name for a specific being: the Judeo Christian God. Tim says that if you look up “monotheism” in the dictionary, they define it as “the belief there is only one God, specifically in Judeo Christianity.” Tim asks how can this be the case if the Bible says things like “Lord of lords” and “God of gods”. How did monotheism today come to mean something that it didn’t mean to the ancient Hebrews? Tim says the Hebrew word for “God” is ‘Elohim’. The short forms of this word is “el” and also “eloah”. Tim says that in Hebrew “Elohim” is plural. In part 3, (37:34-54:05) Tim outlines a unique use of the word “Elohim” the story of Saul in 1 Samuel 28:12-13: Saul has a spirit-medium conjure up the presence of the deceased Samuel: “And the woman saw Samuel, and she cried out...and said ‘I see a elohim rising up from the ground.” This refers to a human who exists apart from their body. This is not saying Samuel is “God” or a “god.” Rather, the word elohim apparently refers to the mode of existence: a member of the non-physical, spirit realm. The later biblical authors developed vocabulary to talk about these beings to more clearly distinguish between them as elohim and the one elohim: Angel, demon, spirits, etc… The implications are Yahweh is an elohim, but not the only elohim (= spirit being). He is the most powerful, and authoritative, and he alone is the creator of all things, including the other elohim. Tim cites this quote by theological scholar Michael Heiser: “Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim is Yahweh. Elohim is a place-of-residence term. The word tells you what the proper domain is for that being. By nature, the God of Israel, the many elohim of God’s council, demons, angels, the departed human dead like Samuel, they are part of a non-physical domain, that’s related to, but distinct from the physical, embodied domain. An elohim is by definition and by nature a disembodied entity, so the word can refer to many different beings who inhabit that realm.” In part 4, (54:05-end) Tim outlines a New Testament example. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6: Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” Tim says Paul is telling the Corinthians that there are other “Elohim” but for the Hebrews, their is “one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.” What does this mean to the Hebrews? Find out next time in episode 2! Thank you to all our supporters! Resources: Paul Jouon & T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew Michael Heiser: The Naked Bible Podcast 1 Samuel 28:12-13 Check out all our videos and resources at www.thebibleproject.com Produced By: Dan Gummel. Jon Collins. Matthew Halbert Howen Music By: Defender Instrumental: Rosasharn Music In the Distance: Tae the Producer Nocturne: Nomyn 2. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, Tim and Jon take a break from discussing theology to talk about some exciting developments at The Bible Project. The guys talk about upcoming theme videos and podcast series, transitioning to a season-based format, and a brand new initiative called “Classroom.” Say hi to us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram: https://www.facebook.com/jointhebibleproject/ https://twitter.com/JoinBibleProj https://www.instagram.com/thebibleproject/ And find all of our resources for free at thebibleproject.com Show Produced by: Dan Gummel. Jon Collins Show Music: Defender Instrumental: Rosasharn Music Loudness and Clarity: Joakim Karud Love Mode: Joakim Karud Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is our Poetry and Metaphor Q+R! Thank you to everyone who submitted questions! We responded to seven questions: (1:20) Ivan from El Salvador - “How do you identify poetry? For example, in Genesis 1, some people say Genesis 1 is poetry, some people say Genesis 1 is actual history. How can you identify if it's poetry? I know there's a lot of poetry in the Bible, and there's also a lot of narrative.” (14:45) Chris from Illinois - “You talk about the metaphor of time as a possession and used it as an example of a modern metaphor, then you say that the Bible doesn't view time in this way. However, in Psalm 31:15 David says, "My times are in your hand," and in Ephesians 5:16 Paul writes, "We should redeem the time." Don't these phrases suggest that both David and Paul view time as figuratively, as a tangible and valuable possession?” (21:55) Jackson from San Luis Obispo, California - “Can you provide a short list of other commonly used metaphor schemes throughout the Scriptures? Sort of like the base layer metaphors to have in my mind while I'm reading through Scripture. I think this would be very beneficial.” (29:45) Tyler from Vancouver, Washington - “You talked about how the biblical authors are using metaphoric imagery to describe the abstract ideas of the new heavens and the new earth, and it seemed like you were talking about that in regards to Eden and Creation. So my question is: Should we think about things like Eden and the new heavens and the new earth as symbolic places, or are they actual real places? And if they are, how do we understand them if the imagery is metaphoric as opposed to descriptive?” (35:25) Kerrie from Australia - “Christians consider the Bible a book that influences the way we live. In the realms of creativity, how should biblical poetry influence Christians today in their writing and creative writing?” (39:30) Clayton from Alabama - “Your conversation about metaphors seem to include a painstaking process of proving and affirming the driving metaphors and schemes that you've focused on. Are there any "guardrails" you suggest for communities of lay people, like college students, that may discover schemes beyond the two that you mentioned, or is there a list or a resource that could serve or help us catch these essential schemes as we engage Scripture?” (42:35) Maggie from Wisconsin - “Can you share any other stories from the New Testament that continue the metaphors that were covered in the Old Testament? Thanks!” Thank you to all of our supporters! Check out everything we're up to at thebibleproject.com Show Resources: Our video on poetry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9yp1ZXbsEg Umberto Eco, The Name of a Rose Books by George Lakoff and Mark Turner: More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor Metaphors We Live By William Brown, Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins, Matthew Halbert-Howen Show music: Rosasharn Music, Defender Instrumental Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In part one (00:00 - 25:35), Jon reviews the image of the ideal state of humanity and postulates it as a garden mountain fortress. He asks Tim why this is so different from a more familiar one of a heaven full of clouds and angels. Tim says that it’s important not to mistake the image of a metaphor for the reality of what the image points to. Tim also quotes TS Eliot saying that poetry is a “raid on the inarticulate.” In other words, poetry is meant to describe things that can’t be described in normal, factual use of language. Tim begins to outline the use of the metaphor of chaotic water in the Bible. Chaotic water is the first image given in the Bible. It’s meant to convey a state of un-creation, a state that is uninhabitable and unwelcoming of life. Tim begins to contrast the dark chaotic water that is present at the start of Genesis with the river of life that flows through Eden and is created later in the creation story. In part two (25:35 - 40:25), Tim explains that chaotic waters often become personified as evil. For example, in the story of the Exodus, Pharoah and his army is made equivalent to the chaotic waters in Exodus 15. This story runs in parallel with Psalm 18. "O Lord God of hosts, who is like You, O mighty Lord? Your faithfulness also surrounds You. You rule the swelling of the sea; When its waves rise, You still them. You Yourself crushed Rahab like one who is slain; You scattered Your enemies with Your mighty arm." (Rahab is a Hebrew word for Egypt). In part three (40:25 - 52:25), Tim outlines Isaiah 17:12-14. 12 Woe to the many nations that rage— they rage like the raging sea! Woe to the peoples who roar— they roar like the roaring of great waters! 13 Although the peoples roar like the roar of surging waters, when he rebukes them they flee far away, driven before the wind like chaff on the hills, like tumbleweed before a gale. 14 In the evening, sudden terror! Before the morning, they are gone! This is the portion of those who loot us, the lot of those who plunder us. The metaphor of chaotic waters further expands to equate the warring nations with chaotic waters. Then Tim begins to outline the new creation prophecies and their relation to the chaotic water metaphor. Joel 4:18: 18 And in that day The mountains will drip with sweet wine, And the hills will flow with milk, And all the brooks of Judah will flow with water; And a spring will go out from the house of the Lord To water the valley of Shittim. Zechariah 14:6-9: 6 On that day there will be neither sunlight nor cold, frosty darkness. 7 It will be a unique day, known only to the Lord with no distinction between day and night. When evening comes, there will be light. 8 On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it east to the Dead Sea and half of it west to the Mediterranean Sea, in summer and in winter. 9 The Lord will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one Lord, and his name the only name. Isaiah 2:1-4: 2 Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the Lord Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream [lit. “river”] to it…. 3 And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war. He says that new creation means the restoration of the cosmic mountain and the reunification of the waters. In part four (52:25 - 57:35), the guys try to crystalize their thought process. Danger and death in the Bible are described as chaotic waters and love, peace and security are described as a river of life. Tim says these images are fundamental to understanding the Bible, especially the prophets. In part five (57:35 - end), the guys recap their conversation on metaphor and talk briefly about creating the video on metaphors in the Bible. Tim briefly touches on the story of Jesus walking on the water. Why is this story in all the gospels? Because in the Jewish tradition, it represents Christ’s command over the chaotic waters that threaten human life and originally appear in Genesis 1. Thank you to all our supporters! Next week we will have a Poetry and Metaphor Q+R episode. Send us your questions at [email protected] by June 25th! Show Produced By: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Rosasharn Music Show Resources: Books by George Lakoff and Mark Turner: More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor Metaphors We Live By Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In the first part of the show, the guys quickly review some common metaphors used in our everyday language. “Time is money,” “life is a journey,” etc. Tim quotes again from George Lakoff saying that in every metaphor, there are elements contained within a metaphor. For example, in the “life is a journey” metaphor, there is embedded vocabulary like viewing people as “companions” and viewing obstacles as “bumps in the road.” Tim posits four main metaphors in the Bible: God is a dryland/mountain/rock. Waters are danger/evil/chaos. Humans are either at peace or at war with animals. The Garden of Eden river and the Tree of Life. In part two, the guys begin to break down the first metaphor listed above. Why is God thought of as “dryland?” To find out, Tim and Jon dive into Genesis 1 and 2, outlining creation. Tim says the imagery found later in the Old Testament is rooted in imagery in Genesis 1 and 2. For example, in Genesis 15, “you plant them in the mountain of your inheritance” shows that the Hebrews viewed their cosmic mountain Garden of Eden as paradise, and the Jewish temple is considered the symbol of paradise, which is man in communion with God. Jon makes a comment about a Fuller Projection map. This is an alternative geographic map of the world that lays out the continents in a different order. The guys discuss how different points of view lead to different thoughts and imagery used in a person’s worldview. In part three, Tim outlines the imagery in Joel 2 and Psalm 48. Here the writer(s) uses some of the imagery originally found in Genesis (holy hill, holy mountain, citadels, the city). Jon asks how critical the imagery of God as a rock/fortress/refuge is in the Bible. Tim points out that these images are fundamental to the Hebrew worldview. To prove his point, Tim does a quick word search and finds 78 hits of the words rock, fortress, and refuge in just the book of Psalms! Tim crystalizes the thought by saying the ideal state of humanity is in a relationship with God, working in a stable garden that acts as a fortress or mountain in which all of humanity can securely dwell. Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Rosasharn Music Josh White, Pilgrim Instrumental E2 Resources: www.thebibleproject.com William Brown, Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor Fuller Projection of Globe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.