More on the Rapture and the Antichrist... notes by Eng-Wong (PhD Candidate) and Dr. Ok

I'm re-posting this for my later reference... it is from my Professor and TA... 

Read more →

Is the "Bible is Sufficient" a valid phrase?

Names removed for anonymity, but this is worth sharing! 

To those who say, "The Bible is Sufficient" and therefore shun (1) academic study of the Bible using other non-biblical texts, (2) modern psychology, (3) modern science, (4) and are just generally anti-intellectual or pseudo intellectual... My classmate asks:

"I guess those leaders would happily undergo surgery by a doctor who used the all-sufficient Bible as their only textbook in medical school? And I guess their mother's favorite apple pie recipe was found somewhere in Leviticus?"

Worth asking one of these "Bible is Sufficient" types if you run into them.

Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!

Darrell Wolfe

Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o

Read more →

What is Paradise? Who ascended? Recontextualizing John 3:13 and Luke 23:43

Question: How can we explain Jesus’s response to the man on the cross “today you will be with me in paradise” whereas Jesus himself says in John 3:13 No one has ever gone into Heaven except the one who came from Heaven? What paradise does Jesus talk about?

 

Thoughts:

1. We should start by asking what each gospel author is doing separately before we start combining the narratives. Each gospel author has specific things they are highlighting and themes they are drawing upon. These are not merely historical records of events, they are theological works. Each gospel author should be taken on their own first.
2. The author of the gospel of John never mentions the interaction of the thief. In John 3:13, Jesus is speaking with his fellow rabbi/colleague, Nicodemus. The interaction begins by Nico being confused by Jesus' claims. Jesus responds by asserting his authority to speak of the things of God's domain. "And no one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man." Any reference to the Son of Man is a reference to a human+divine figure from the Hebrew Bible (specifically Daniel). This sentence is asking Rabbi Nico to reflect on the passage(s) around this figure and this figure's ascent to heaven. Jesus is making a play on very old ideas around who this figure might be. He's claiming to be this figure, and Nico as a Rabbi would have understood this. Further, this conversation takes place before the cross event.
3. The author of the gospel of Luke tells a longer story about the cross event, and he is the one who mentions the paradise. Jesus turns to the thief and says, "today you will be with me in paradise" Lk 23:43. This term, paradise [παράδεισος (paradeisos)] has also has a long history of use in Second Temple Judaism. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (aka The Septuagint, LXX), "Eden" in Genesis 3 is translated from Hebrew to Greek as paradise [παράδεισος (paradeisos)]. The "garden of God" is a well establish motif in Ancient Near East literature, and in the Hebrew Bible specifically. Gardens and Mountains were poetic motifs of God's space or sacred spaces. To a Jewish audience living in the first century AD, Jesus telling the thief he would be together in paradise [παράδεισος (paradeisos)] is to say that they will be together in Yahweh's domain, Eden, The Garden of God, the Mountain of God. All of these are thematic and poetic references to the same concept. We call this "Heaven" in English, though our English word carries frieght that may not be in their worldview. It's close enough for understanding what is meant by paradise [παράδεισος (paradeisos)]. 

 

Conclusion:

Jesus told Nico that only the one who came from God's domain (paradise [παράδεισος (paradeisos)], heaven, Eden, etc.) could then ascend to this same space. That is pre-cross. At the cross, he announces that he is taking people with him on his return. 

Recontextualizing our English terms (loaded with medieval theologians' ideas) with the Jewish worldview of the first century helps clarify almost every confusing statement in the New Testament. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For further reading, copy this somewhere and check out these resources and themes:

---

See further explanations > 

 

From: D. L. Bock, “Son of Man,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition, ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013), 894.

SON OF MAN

According to the Gospels, “Son of Man” is Jesus’ favorite self-designation. It is used eighty-six times in the NT (Synoptics 69×, John 13×, elsewhere 4×). In the NT it is never presented as a confessional term from someone in the early church. However, Jesus does use it alongside confessional titles, such as “Messiah,” that others raise (e.g., Mk 8:29–31; 14:61–62). The phrase in its various lexical constructions is almost exclusively confined to the Gospels, except at Acts 7:56; Hebrews 2:6 (where Ps 8:4 is cited); Revelation 1:13; 14:14. In the Gospels only Jesus uses the term, except at John 12:34, where what he has said is cited by others. The term is written in Greek as “the son of the man” (ho huios tou anthrōpou), except for John 5:27; Hebrews 2:6; Revelation 1:13; 14:14 (huios anthrōpou). The phrase in a few Gospel passages (Mt 24:30 // Mk 13:26 // Lk 21:27; Mt 26:64 // Mk 14:62 // Lk 22:69) is related directly to language from Daniel 7:13–14 and, as was noted above, is associated in Hebrews 2:6 with Psalm 8, where it carries its common meaning of “human being,” as a “son of man” is a descendant of a man and thus a human.
The expression also has a rich background in the Scripture of Second Temple Judaism as well as in traditions derived from it. So we proceed by examining its usage and background in this Jewish context before considering its NT use.
Finally, the expression in Aramaic is idiomatic (bar ʾĕnāš). It is not a title, just as it is not a title but rather a description (“one like a son of man”) in its original use in Daniel 7:13–14. This means that it can function as an expression on its own without evoking any biblical associations, although the power of the description makes it a candidate to become a title or at least a clear designation of a distinct figure. This type of usage feeds into its development in Second Temple Judaism and in the NT.

///

2. Usage in Second Temple Judaism

Besides a linguistic context for the use of “son of man,” there also is a tradition rooted in Scripture and reflected on in Second Temple Judaism that is sometimes reflected in this phrase. Two texts are of great significance, while others show the context in which such hope operated. The idea of the vindicated, rejected righteous has roots in the Psalter (Pss 22; 69) and is presented in the picture of vindicated, rejected wisdom in Wisdom 2 and 5. The influence of the latter passage on some “son of man” passages is traced by G. Nickelsburg. These set a context that Daniel 7 also reflects: the vindication of the righteous. This Danielic text is by far the most important scriptural context for the expression “son of man” when it is linked to Scripture.
2.1. Daniel 7. This text is an overview of the historical movement toward God’s deliverance of his people. It moves through four world dynasties pictured as aberrant animals (lion with eagle’s wings, bear with a human mind, leopard with four birdlike wings, dreadful beast with two rows of iron teeth). In contrast comes “one like a son of man,” a human, who rides the clouds to the Ancient of Days to receive ruling authority (Dan 7:13–14). In Daniel 7:27 this authority and the identification of the figure are tied to the saints of the Most High. But the dynasties of Daniel 7 are also tied to kings who lead them. So, although Daniel’s interpretation points to the corporate beneficiaries of this new thing that God will do, the idea of a figure to lead it is not far away. This idea is suggested by the statement in Daniel 7:27 that all will serve and obey him. The term translated as “serve” (plḥ) here carries the meaning of “worship” (Dan 3:12, 14, 18, 28; 6:17, 21; 7:14, 27 [parallel to sgd in Dan 3:18]), something not done of a nation. The Son of Man is pictured as a singular human figure with transcendent qualities, as his riding of the clouds indicates. In the OT it is deity that rides the clouds (Ex 14:20; 34:5; Num 10:34; Ps 104:3; Is 19:1). So this image is of a human being who also has heavenly qualities. The emphasis in the text is that he receives authority in response to the suffering of God’s people. It is the feature of human-heavenly elements and authority that are important in the usage picked up in the NT. The interpretation of this figure in Daniel is disputed as being either corporate for Israel, an angelic figure (perhaps Michael or Gabriel), or involving an eschatological figure (either a messiah or another eschatological deliverer). What is indisputable is that in Second Temple Judaism an individual with authority to deliver and judge developed from this image, as our two other key Second Temple texts show.
2.2. 1 Enoch 37–71.The book of 1 Enoch is a composite Jewish book, probably made up of five parts stitched together over time. The earliest part comes from two centuries before the time of Jesus. The last section added includes material that refers to the Son of Man. These key chapters probably go back to the Herodian era of the late first century B.C. and early first century A.D., since they contain allusions to the Parthian conflict in the forties B.C. (Bock and Charlesworth). This date is likely despite the fact this section was missing from Enoch texts found at Qumran (Esther too was not found there, and we know it predates the community) (see Dead Sea Scrolls). The book of 1 Enoch has an eschatological hero in Enoch, and this would counter the hero of Qumran, the Teacher of Righteousness. This important section 1 Enoch 37–71 is known as the Similitudes or Parables of Enoch. In it there is a key figure who goes by a variety of names: “righteous one,” “chosen one,” “anointed one,” and this or that “son of man.” He functions as a judge and is preexistent (1 En. 46; 62–63). Nickelsburg speaks of a conflation of images in this portrait, drawing on Wisdom 2; 5 (preexistent like wisdom) and the one who vindicates in Isaiah 52–53. Some discount any connections between Jesus as the Son of Man and the ideas expressed in 1 Enoch because of the preexistence of the Enoch figure, which is not like the NT usage, and because there is no mention of the Son of Man “coming” as in the NT (Burkett). Others argue in response that the point is the function of this figure as judge and his transcendent quality. In any case, 1 Enoch shows that imagery associated with a Son of Man figure was in play and under development in the Second Temple period.
2.3. 4 Ezra 11–13. This text is the least important of the three, in part because this material postdates our period. However, its picture of an eschatological judge who has royal characteristics while appealing to the imagery of Daniel 7 confirms that imagery associated with a Son of Man concept was current during the period.
As a group, these texts show that a transcendent judge-deliverer was associated with a figure who was called Son of Man. The notion that a “Son of Man” title existed in this period is sometimes challenged, but the presence of a specific title is not the key point. Rather, the point is that there existed in some Jewish thought a figure associated with heaven who judges. The portrait occurs in various forms, but this figure is called, among other names, Son of Man.

 

From: W. Hall Harris III et al., eds., The Lexham English Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Lk 23:39–44.

39 And one of the criminals who were hanged there reviled him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself—and us!” 40 But the other answered and rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, because you are undergoing the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for what we have done. But this man has done nothing wrong!” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom!” 43 And he said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” 

 

 

From: Benjamin M. Austin, “Afterlife,” in Lexham Theological Wordbook, ed. Douglas Mangum et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).

παράδεισος (paradeisos). n. masc. paradise. Refers to the place where the blessed or righteous dead go after death. The place where the righteous dead enjoy a blessed afterlife is sometimes called paradise (paradeisos) in the NT. In Luke 23:43, Jesus tells the thief who had faith that he would be with him in paradise (paradeisos). In 2 Corinthians 12:1–4, Paul refers to heaven as paradise (paradeisos). Revelation 2:7 also seems to refer to heaven as the “paradise (paradeisos) of God.”

 

From: Justin W. Bass, “Paradise,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

PARADISE (παράδεισος, paradeisos). A loanword from ancient Persian pairi-daeza which can mean “an enclosed space,” “park,” or “garden.” Associated with heaven, New Jerusalem, and Christ’s dwelling place.

Paradise in the Ancient World
The earliest attestation for “paradise” (παράδεισος, paradeisos) in ancient literature is found in the Septuagint (LXX), in Gen 2 and 3. It is likely a loanword from ancient Persia dating back to the sixth century BC. It comes from the Persian word pairi-daeza which can mean “an enclosed space,” “park,” or “garden” (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.2, 7; 2.4, 14; Aristides, Roman, 26, 99).

Paradise in the Septuagint (LXX)
Alexandrian Jews translated the Hebrew words פַּרְדֵּס (pardes), גַּן (gan), and עֵדֶן (eden) (once) with the Greek word “paradise” (παράδεισος, paradeisos). פַּרְדֵּס (pardes) is used in the book of Nehemiah to describe a forest (Neh 2:8), in Song of Songs to depict an orchard (Song 4:13), and in Ecclesiastes to describe Solomon’s campaigns to create gardens and parks (Eccl 2:5). The Prophets first gave this word its eschatological connotations, beginning with Isa 51:3. Isaiah promises that the eschatological Jerusalem will be like the Garden of Eden—paradise redivivus. Within the Hebrew (and LXX) Scriptures:

  •      God planted paradise for His people (Gen 2).
  •      Paradise was taken away as a result of sin (Gen 3).
  •      Paradise will be restored for His people in the messianic age (Isa 51:3; Ezek 47:1–12; Rev 22:1–2).

Paradise in Second Temple Literature
During the Second Temple period, paradise was one of the primary locales for the righteous in the afterlife. The Testament of Levi presents the Messiah opening the “gates of paradise” for the saints (T. Levi 18.10–11). This is the earliest example of a religious use of “paradise” outside of the Old Testament (Jeremias, TDNT, 5.765). Paradise is the dwelling place of the righteous dead in the afterlife. Paradise may have been:

  •      The Underworld (1 En. 22; 4 Ezra 4:7–8; 7:37, 38; compare Josephus, Antiquities 18.14–15).
  •      In the earth (Jubilees 3.12; 4.26; 8.16, 19; compare Origen, First Principles 2.11.6).
  •      In heaven (1 En. 60.8; 65.2; 70.3; 89.52; Ps. Sol. 14.2–3; 2 En. 8–9; L.A.E. 37.5).

Paradise in the New Testament
The word “paradise” only occurs in the New Testament three times (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 12:4; Rev 2:7). In Paul’s writings, paradise is presented as synonymous with the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2, 4). In Revelation, it is synonymous with the New Jerusalem (Rev 2:7; 21:2). This shows the transferable nature of the term παράδεισος (paradeisos) in the New Testament. Paradise is clearly distinguished from “heaven” (τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, tou ouranou) in Rev 21:2, but Paul equates paradise and heaven (2 Cor 12:2, 4).
The book of Luke presents Jesus stating that he will see the man crucified next to Him in paradise, that day (Luke 23:43), but it also includes Peter’s statement that Christ’s soul dwelt in Hades between His death and resurrection (Acts 2:27, 31). This may suggest that Luke considered paradise to be the abode of the righteous in the Underworld (compare 1 En. 22; 4 Ezra 4:7–8; 7:37, 38; Josephus, Antiquities 18.14–15). Paradise could also be a transferable locale in the New Testament because the presence of Christ is what makes the reality paradise.

  •      The criminal was with Christ in paradise in the Underworld on Good Friday.
  •      Paul visited paradise in the third heaven where Christ currently dwells (2 Cor 12:2, 4; Phil 1:21–26; 3:20).
  •      The saints enter paradise in the New Jerusalem because the Lamb (Christ) will dwell there forever and ever (Rev 2:7; 21:22; 22:1–5, 14).

Bibliography
  Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Edited by I. H. Marshall and D. A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
  Jeremias, J. “παράδεισος (paradeisos).” Pages 765–73 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 5. Edited by G. Kittel, G. Freidrich, and G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76.
  MacCulloch, J. A. The Harrowing of Hell: A Comparative Study of an Early Christian Doctrine. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930.
  Weisengoff, J. P. “Paradise and St. Luke 23:43.” American Ecclesiastical Review 103 (1940): 163–68.

JUSTIN W. BASS

 

Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!

Darrell Wolfe

Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o

Read more →

Jesus: Human and Divine

Class Discussion Question: Why did God send Jesus Christ to Earth with perfect humanity and perfect divinity?

My Thoughts…

Nowhere is the practice of diving into the biblical author’s worldview more fascinating than the role of Jesus as the Human-God/God-Human.

 

Portraits in Tanakh

Throughout the Tankah (Hebrew Bible), the writers painted portraits of the relationship between YHWH and Israel (and humanity). All the portraits of the Tanakh tell the stories of Yahweh’s attempts to co-reign with his human imagers. At core, that is the singular message of the biblical authors. God. With. Us. It is what Genesis 1-11 sets up as the prime narrative, and it is the undercurrent in every other narrative.

The Prologue (Gen 1-11) provides poetic symbolism of Yahweh creating a space for humanity and joining His space to humanity’s space, and the separation/exile/death that came as a result of human and lesser elohim rebellions. To be separated, exiled, from Yahweh’s space is to experience death. Physical death is merely the final separation from the spaces where Yahweh’s domain and Earth’s domains overlap. And it is the hope of the later writers that a day would come in which the living and the dead would return to this overlapping space.

But throughout the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Isaiah, Daniel, Ruth, and so many others, we see portraits of Yahweh “with us” (1 Kings 8:57; 2 Chr 13:12; Isa 7:14, 8:8; Matt 1:23). Yahweh frequently made physical appearances, and sometimes there was a muddying of the invisible and visible Yahweh. But in all cases, the sense was a Yahweh who wanted to be with us. Ezekial played the role of Son of Man, who would intercede for Yahweh among his people. Isaiah say a Yahweh-empowered Israelite who would both suffer and redeem.

 

Each portrait pulled from previous threads but added new facets.

“A number of Jewish writers ca. 516 BC—AD 70 offered opinions as to the identity of the “second Yahweh,” the second power in heaven”[1] Heiser worked this out in detail in his book Unseen Realm where he noted “The startling reality is that long before Jesus and the New Testament, careful readers of the Old Testament would not have been troubled by the notion of, essentially, two Yahwehs—one invisible and in heaven, the other manifest on earth in a variety of visible forms, including that of a man. In some instances the two Yahweh figures are found together in the same scene.”.[2] He also references the earlier work of Segal on the development of this thought in Second Temple literature among the rabbis.[3]

Also during this period, the sages and rabbis of various movements, including the sects at Qumran, were pondering the Tanakh and other writings, and asking what Yahweh might be doing in their day or what kind of expectation they should hold. Some portraits speak of Messiah ben David, “the reigning Kind who will bring peace to the world”; while some portraits speak of Messiah ben Joseph, who is “the Suffering Servant”.[4]

 

Along comes Jesus

Then came a rabbi from Nazareth, a small nothing town in the north. Rabbi Yeshua (English-Jesus / Greek - Iesus) came teaching in much the same way as his intellectual kin, the Pharisees. They did not view him as an outsider, but as an insider. They saw him as worth their time to debate (as debating each other on the finer points of Torah observance was their primary activity). Rabbi Yeshua challenged them but also respected them. Some resisted him, while other (like Nicodemus) followed The Way of Rabbi Yeshua.

Yeshua showed the ways in which these earlier portraits that promised a “God with Us” were being filled-full in his presence among them (Luke 4:21). He went on to say that even the story of Jonah was a means of referring to the larger story Yahweh was working through him (Matt 12:40, Jonah 1:17-2:1). The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels notes that the gospel authors emphasized the ways in which Yeshua did the works that only Yahweh could do.[5]

The gospel writers wrestle with showing Yeshua’s language and claims in portraits. To borrow a paragraph from my own post on this thread about the “I AM” statements of Jesus equating himself with Yahweh while also referring to the Father and Himself as separate individuals:

// The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels makes note of “three instances in Mark’s Gospel where Jesus’ pronouncement of egō eimi belongs to the narrative’s gradual unfolding of his identity (Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62).”[6] John’s gospel goes further by noting Jesus to say, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30).[7] Paul calls Jesus “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:10).[8]//

Yeshua makes the same statements about the Holy Spirit being a person and not just a force, and yet equally Yahweh.

 

So what are we to do with these portraits?

Messianic Judaism has dedicated the largest portion of their scholarship and writing interacting with what they see as errors in both Gentile Christianity and Non-Jesus-Believing modern Judaism. They have taught me to live in the tension, acknowledge the various portraits, and not feel the need to draw arbitrary lines in the sand about them.

Do we need to label these, or can we simply live in the meditative tension of them? If we must label them, “Trinity” or “God-Head” seem like they work well enough for me. But I tend not to use that verbiage, as I prefer to refer people to the portraits. We can analyze a painting, or we can simply soak it in. I think I’m in the soaking phase of my journey.

Shalom, Darrell

 

Notes:

---

[1] The Lexham Bible Dictionary - Barry, J. D., Bomar, D., Brown, D. R., Klippenstein, R., Mangum, D., Sinclair Wolcott, C., … Widder, W. (Eds.). (2016). In The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press. (Billingham, WA: Leham Press, 2016), §Michael S. Heiser, “Divine Council,” SubSection “The Second Power in Heaven/Second Yahweh,” LexhamPress.com.

[2] Heiser, The Unseen Realm, 134–135 > Notes > The startling reality is that long before Jesus and the New Testament, careful readers of the Old Testament would not have been troubled by the notion of, essentially, two Yahwehs—one invisible and in heaven, the other manifest on earth in a variety of visible forms, including that of a man. In some instances the two Yahweh figures are found together in the same scene. In this and chapter that follows, we’ll see that the “Word” was just one expression of a visible Yahweh in human form.1 The concept of a Godhead in the Old Testament has many facets and layers.2 After the birth of his promised son, Isaac, Abraham’s spiritual journey includes a divine figure that is integral to Israelite Godhead thinking: the Angel of Yahweh. Although the most telling passages that show this angel as a visible embodiment of the very presence of Yahweh occur later than the time of Abraham, there are early hints of his nature during the lifetimes of Abraham and his sons. 1 The Jewish community that inherited the Old Testament was well aware of this. For centuries Judaism felt no discomfort with the notion of two Yahweh figures. The idea was referred to as the “two powers in heaven” and was endorsed within Judaism until the second century AD. It is important to note that the two powers were both holy. This is not dualism, where two equal deities exist, one good, the other evil. The major work on Judaism’s two-powers teaching was published originally in 1971 by the late Alan Segal. Segal was Jewish and his career focused on Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. His work documents how the two-powers idea became a heresy in Judaism in the second century AD. It was recently reprinted. See Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (reprint, Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012). The Old Testament roots of the two-powers doctrine were one of the major focus points of my doctoral dissertation. The logic of the two Yahweh figures in the Old Testament reflects an Israelite adaptation of the Canaanite structuring of the top tier of the Canaanite divine council. See Michael S. Heiser, “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2004).  2 The conception of a Godhead in orthodox Israelite thought, interpreted in the context of the wider Canaanite environment, was a focus of my dissertation. That material has been revised and put forth in an article accepted for publication at the time of this writing: Michael S. Heiser, “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism,” (forthcoming in the Bulletin for Biblical Research). I will post that article (presuming permission from BBR) on the companion website when it appears. The data and discussion go considerably beyond what appears in this book.

[3] Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity v. 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1977).

[4] John B. Metzger, Discovering the Mystery of the Unity of God: A Theological Study on the Plurality and Tri-Unity of God in the Hebrew Scriptures (John Metzger, www.Ariel.org, 2010), 846, www.PromisesToIsrael.org,www.Ariel.org, https://www.logos.com/product/8050/discovering-the-mystery-of-the-unity-of-god.

[5] Adams, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (IVP Bible Dictionary), n. G. H. Twelftree, “Miracles and Miracle Stories,”, Pg 594.

[6] Paul Adams, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (IVP Bible Dictionary), IVP Bible Dictionary (Downers Grove: IVP, 2016), §C. H. Williams, “‘I Am’ Sayings,” Pg 396.

[7] LEB, v. John 10:30.

[8] LEB, v. Col 1:10.

Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!

Darrell Wolfe

Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o

Read more →

Your Question: What is your take on Original Sin or the state of sinfulness of human beings?

My answer in a class discussion post

Question: What is your take on Original Sin or the state of sinfulness of human beings? 

My Thoughts: The idea of "Original Sin" is totally foreign to the biblical authors worldview, up to and including Paul. 

Some rabbis, thinking Augustine got Paul right, have argued that Paul twisted Torah to say there was such an idea.[1] However, Stewart makes a decent case for defending that while the idea is completely foreign to the Hebrew Bible, it was developed in Second Temple Judaism.[2]

This begs way too many questions for a discussion post, I will try to be brief (not my strong suite, ha ha).

 

What is the biblical original of evil?

Heiser has made the case in his books and podcasts that the biblical authors would not describe the original of evil as a single event between God and Adam in Genesis three.[3] Rather, Genesis 1-11 operates as the prologue of Torah and Tanakh (and therefore the B’rit Chadashah/ New Testament).

In this prologue, there are various portraits and narratives that culminate in three major rebellions (and several minor ones). In all three archetype rebellions, there are Human and Elohim rebels present.

In all three narrative archetypes, "death" is shown as exile. Exile = Death. Physical death in later authors becomes the ultimate exile. 

1. The Nachash (serpent) is a word that calls on divine origins, not simply a talking snake. Original readers would not simply see a snake, but a divine throne guardian operating in a serpent like manner. It is the partnership of Human (adam), Life (eve), and HaNachash (diviner or communicator for God, Shiny One, Serpent)[4] that leads to the exile of Human from the garden (human/divine joint space).
2. The sin of the Watchers - The elohim intermingle with humankind and create hybrid offspring. They are also depicted as teaching humankind to war and kill. The story of the hybrid Nephilim is a callback to various Mesopotamian and Babylonian mythologies of the Apkallus. Long story there, but many Hebrew Bible texts make more sense once we have that history in our brains.
3. The Rebellion at Babylon – For some reason, various English interpreters insist on translating Gen 11 as Babel, but it is the same Hebrew word for Babylon elsewhere, and that is intentional. This is a call back to Babylon’s history including the Apkallus from #2. Babylon considered themselves to have been founded by demigods who were mighty kings and warriors. The Tower of Babel isn’t just a tower, it’s a Ziggurat (worship temple) intended to bring the elohim (gods) and humankind together. This is a rejection of Yahweh. Thus, he divorces the nations, turns them over to the rebel elohim, and starts over with Abraham (See also Psalm 82, Psalm 89, etc.).

Genesis 12 is where the story really starts after this prologue. All human evil, throughout the biblical authors, including Paul, is brought back to the elohim + humankind tendency toward rebellion, and culturally toward using empire to break human relationships. It is the human tendency to partner with or be deceived by these rebel elohim that leads to so much evil. This is seen individually but also at a macro level by comparing God's rule and reign in contrast to "empire" where Babylon and Egypt become archetypes of human + elohim evil inflicted on other humans.

Sin is humans inspired by evil spirits in rebellion against God’s ways, resulting in broken relationship with God and fellow humans. Jesus defeats the rebel "powers" and The Church begins the mission of calling the divorced nations back to Yahweh, and taking dominion back from the rebel elohim's nations.

 

What is sin and what is Paul talking about?

Paul is working through why there is no distinction between different humans in regards to Jesus’ redemption, and he says, “For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift…” (Rom 3:22-23). Thus, Paul’s statement is about there being no distinction between Jew and Gentile, because all have fallen short. Indeed, throughout the Hebrew Bible (Paul’s Scriptures), we see instance after instance of humankind being given the chance to rise up and failing in their relationship with God and/or their fellow human imagers. Paul goes on to expand on this by discussing the history of Abram (Abraham) and how he was considered to have faith and be loyal to Yahweh long before he received circumcision or any outward signs of covenant. Again, this is a Jew vs Gentile discussion.

It’s important to note that Paul says, “until the law, sin was in the world but sin is not charged to one’s account” – So he is not saying that people are guilty before an arbitrary set of sky rules, which is how many Christian traditions have ended up talking about “sin”. This reminds me of the US-American context of the 20^th century, where it was a “sin” to wear makeup, go to the movies, smoke a cigarette, or other behaviors the community deemed untoward but have no biblical prohibition. Sin is often referred to as though it were about arbitrary behavior modification; rather, than about right-relationships, which is the biblical concern.

Following the Hebrew Bible authors use of words like sin, death, and exile interchangeably, Paul draws on the example of Human (adam) showing that death entered the world through one man and therefore one man can solve the problem.

What death? The death of exile from God’s presence. What is the answer then? God-With-Us, Emmanuel, came down in human form and restored us to right relationship with God and each other.

The entire argument is messier and muddier and more full of analogies than clean systems of theology are capable of nuancing. The ancient Israelite authors of the Hebrew Bible (and thus the Jewish authors of the New Testament) worked primarily through euphemism, analogy, metaphor, poetic license, hyperbole, and other literary devices to pain multiple portraits of the human condition from multiple angles.

• The biblical narrative is not about Perfection > Fall > Redemption. That’s a foreign concept to the biblical authors’ worldview.

• The biblical narrative is about Seed > Failure to Thrive/Grow into the Desired Outcome > Continued Progress Toward the Outcome (Hebrew Bible) > Renewed Covenant and Re-Empowered Re-Invigorated Mission aka New Creation / New Life (New Test) > And someday, on The Day of the Lord, a final and firm redemption and renewal in New Creation.

The narrative isn't about a fall, but a seed, failure, and progressive work on that seed.

The narrative is that God started a project to join God’s space with Human space, all humans fail in the process of that relationship, and God is continuing to work to see that initial seed of an idea come to fruition.

There was no fall or “original sin”, because there was no perfection to fall from. There was a seed, Human (adam) failed to finish the project, and all humans since have lived with that failure (narratively). God worked and continues to work on this human + God project, and he has initiated a new higher phase in Jesus, and he has an ultimate phase coming on The Day.

Side Note: When "original sin" is thrown out as an idea imposed on the text, other debates about Genesis start to mean less. I see no reason to understand Genesis 1-11 as anything but a metaphor and analogy of the human condition, and when Paul or Jesus draw Human (adam) into the discussion, they are calling on the literary figure, not a literal one. It’s not unlike me saying, “Just like Iron Man pulled one over on Thanos, Jesus pulled one over on the rebel elohim.” I’m drawing an analogy from a literary/media figure to make a point about a real one.

---

[1] Tovia Singer, “Does Judaism Believe in Original Sin? - Outreach Judaism,” 28 April 2014, https://outreachjudaism.org/original-sin/.

[2] Tyler Allen Stewart, “‘The Present Evil Age’: The Origin and Persistence of Evil in Galatians” (Marquette University, April 2019), Argument picks up around page 75., Dissertations (1934 -) - 830, Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects, https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/830/.

[3] Heiser, The Unseen Realm; Michael Heiser, Angels: What the Bible Really Says about God’s Heavenly Host, 2018, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1900613; Michael Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says about the Powers of Darkness (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020); Michael Heiser, “The Naked Bible Podcast,” The Naked Bible Podcast, n.d., https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/episodes/.

[4] Heiser, The Unseen Realm, §Chapter 11-Section: The Nachash of Genesis 3.

Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!

Darrell Wolfe

Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o

Read more →

How can I be a "Good Christian" in the 21st century?

Cross posting from another conversation thread... 

To your question, "...should it be easy to be a good Christian?" I posit a thought to add to your musing. 

I've spent the last five years studying the Ancient Near East and Second Temple Judaism contexts of the biblical authors. One of the fascinating shifts was away from a Jewish mentality of focusing on "Orthopraxy" (right practice) to a Gentile mentality of focusing on "Orthodoxy" (right belief). It is my thesis at this point in my journey that this shift fundamentally broke the Gentile western Church. From the very beginning, we took a wrong turn by doing this.

I find it interesting that so many of us who grew up in modern western Churchianity find ourselves asking what we need to "do" to be a "good Christian"? 

That was the question Jewish believers were asking themselves in the first century AD. Go read the gospels and stop thinking of the Pharisees as Jesus' adversaries and instead see them as his peers (not an inter faith debate, but an intra faith debate). This was inside baseball, this was rabbi to rabbi... Jesus was recognized as a Rabbi by the Pharisees. This wasn't a Jesus against the Jewish Rabbis debate they were having, this is Jewish Rabbi Jesus saying, "This is how you be a Torah observant Jew" and the other Jewish Rabbis saying, "But what about this practice? What about what Rabbi Shammai? What about Rabbi Hillel? Why should be "Good Jews" your way?" 

When the Gentiles first came to The Way of Rabbi Yeshua, they didn't ask what doctrines they should believe to be part of the family. They asked "what should they be required to DO?" Abstain from blood, don't eat meat.... etc." 

They were asking how Gentiles can come to a Jewish sect without becoming fully Torah observant Jews. In other words, the entire New Testament exists to answer "How can I be a Good Christian?" not to answer "What Doctrines should I believe?" 

It was about practice, not doctrines.

While I cannot do much to change anyone else's mind about that, I find myself in 2025 looking not to what churches have the right doctrinal statements, but rather, HOW they live. If a person or group claims to be a follower of Jesus, I look to see if they are

• feeding the hungry,
• giving water to the thirsty,
• welcoming and providing hospitality to the stranger/traveler/immigrant,
• working with the Sick to bring healing or relieve pain,
• vising those in prison.... (Matthew 25).

If they're doing that kind of stuff, or stuff in that general direction... they're a "Good Christian" and if they aren't they're not (regardless of they claim to hold on their "We Believe" pages on their website). 

I might get more nuanced in the future, but that's where I'm sitting with that question today. 

Shalom שָׁלוֹם: Live Long and Prosper!

Darrell Wolfe

Storyteller | Writer | Thinker | Consultant | Freelancer | Bible Nerd *Written withs some editing and research assistance from ChatGPT-4o

Read more →