Right there in chapter 21 Peter runs to the tomb with the disciple whom Jesus loved, eliminating him. James is martyred in Acts 12, so it can’t be him. I was unsatisfied with accepting John as the author via this process. But Google searches only offered the same result, plus the attribution of some late 2nd century church fathers who wouldn’t know any more than we would. Hence, I decided to read John looking for the answer. It wasn’t hard to find.

Who was the disciple whom Jesus loved?

In John 11 a man named Lazarus falls ill. His sisters send word to Jesus to inform him. Verse 3 contains the message that was sent to Jesus.

So the sisters sent a message to Jesus, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.”

Jesus delays for some reason (we’ll get to that) then heads to Bethany to see him. When he arrives, Lazarus is dead, resulting in the shortest verse in the Bible. Jesus wept. But verse 36 is of particular interest.

So the Jews said, “see hoe he loved him.”

Thus, it was fairly easy to conclude that Lazarus is in fact the disciple whom Jesus loved. No such attribution is made of any other follower of Jesus. But there’s more evidence to consider.

Who reclined next to the Lord?

John 21;20 tells us that the disciple whom Jesus loved reclined next to the Lord at the supper. However, the supper being referenced doesn’t identify the disciple reclining next to the Lord. However, there is one occasion where one man is described as reclining next to the Lord.

John 12:2 So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table.

So here is another internal clue from John as to the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved. But this is also the point where Lazarus ceases to be identified by name in the Gospel of John. Is there some reason for the author to cease identifying Lazarus by name at this particular point and begin using the moniker “the disciple whom Jesus loved?”

The plot to kill Lazarus.

As it turns out, there is. John 12 tells us that the chief priests began plotting to kill Lazarus because he was causing too many people to convert due to his resurrection. So it stands to reason that the author would want to conceal the identity of the author Lazarus to outsiders. They are already plotting to kill him. However, he gives enough evidence to insiders to be able to identify the author, thus gaining the authority of his special status for his Gospel.

There is one more piece of evidence, but before I address that, let’s get to the problems with my theory. The first problem is insignificant. Lazarus is nowhere identified as a disciple. However, this isn’t actually a problem. John 19:38 tells us that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret disciple. Luke has 2 other disciples (not the twelve) on the road to Emmaus. Thus, one doesn’t need to be one of the twelve to be a disciple. However, the next challenge is more problematic.

Lazarus is a fictional character.

To see this, we need to look at what Jesus says before raising Lazarus from the dead. We find this information in John 11:41-42.

So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said “Father, I thank you for having heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said that for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.

So Jesus is performing this miracle as a sign to those standing there, that they may believe. And it worked, remember? This is why they plotted to kill Lazarus. Moreover, Jesus delayed to go to Bethany to allow Lazarus to die specifically so that he could raise him as a sign of who he was. We see this in verses 14 and 15 of the same chapter.

Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead. For your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

Not only did Jesus raise Lazarus as a sign of who he was, he waited to go there to allow him to die so that he could raise a man from the dead to show his followers who he was. The only problem? Jesus doesn’t believe that a man coming back from the dead will convince people. Only the law and the prophets will.

One Lazarus, or two?

In Luke 16 starting in verse 19, Jesus tells a parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Is this a different Lazarus, or the same guy? Let’s look at points of comparison between these two men named Lazarus.

• Both die. Luke 16:22, John 11:21
• Resurrection of both is discussed. Luke 16:27, John 11:23-26
• Both recline at the side of someone. Abraham, Luke 16:22, Jesus John 12:2
• The resurrection is discussed as a sign. Luke 16:31, John 11:42.

And this is the precise moment where the two stories part ways. Consider each of these two verses against the other.

Luke 16:31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’

John 11:42 “I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.”

There’s only one Lazarus.

These aren’t two different men. In Luke, Lazarus is a fictional character who dies, reclines at the side of Abraham, and is denied resurrection because faith should come from the law and the prophets. However, time has passed and the return of Jesus is looking less and less imminent. More and more people will be required to believe with less and less evidence as time passes. So John exports Lazarus out of the parable, and gives him a real life and a real death to correct the error of Luke. His resurrection is precisely why you should believe in Jesus. Moreover, it is exactly why people do believe in Jesus. Thus, the resurrected life of Lazarus is in danger and John is forced to hide his identity. This leads us to our last two pieces of evidence.

“I’ve been there before.”

In John 20, Peter and the beloved disciple rush to the empty tomb of Jesus. Peter goes in and looks around, but we’re not told what he makes of it. The beloved disciple goes in, and (v. 8) “saw and believed.” Why? Because it’s Lazarus. He knows from experience what the inside of an empty tomb looks like after a resurrection.

Furthermore, in John 21:20-23 we learn that there was a rumor that the disciple whom Jesus loved would live forever. However, he appears to be dead at the time of writing (or a fictional character). So the author informs us that this misconception was based on a misunderstanding of what Jesus said. However, it makes more sense that early Christians, believing that Jesus was resurrected to eternal life, would expect that the same was true for Lazarus, the beloved disciple. So the author includes this note in case anyone goes looking for his fictional “author” in real life. Lazarus is unavailable for comment. He died twice.

Lazarus is the author of the Fourth Gospel.

Not really, of course. But this is what the author intended for us to believe. Lazarus wasn’t some fictional character in a story spun by Jesus. On the contrary, Lazarus was the real life disciple whom Jesus loved. Moreover, as the people of his day believed because of his resurrection, you could believe based on the testimony of the disciples as to the resurrection of Jesus. Remember the words of Jesus to Thomas?

John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”

Which returns us to the parabolic Lazarus. We now have the law, the prophets, and the witness of the disciples. So while we, like the rich man’s brothers, will not see one raised from the dead, we unlike Thomas, should believe the words of the disciples who did see Jesus raised. Thus the disciple whom Jesus loved becomes a witness to Jesus in both of his deaths, the parabolic and the actual. And he wrote us perhaps the most important Gopsel in the New Testament, the fourth Gospel. The Gospel according to Lazarus. Moreover, he did all of this without ever having existed.

The post Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel? appeared first on Biblical Anarchy.

The who, what, when, where, and how of this passage make it susceptible to use by proponents of the Trinity. However, what they never address is the “why?” In the New Testament (according to Trinitarian theology), God takes on human flesh. But why? So that God in human flesh can offer himself as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. This was necessary to accomplish the salvation of all who would trust in him.

Why does God take on human flesh in Genesis 18 and 19?

In Genesis 18 we are told explicitly why God takes on human flesh, presuming that is what happened here.

20 Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.”

Genesis 18:20–21 (ESV):

An outcry against Sodom has caught the attention of God. He has come down to earth to see if things are as bad as he has heard. Thus, he is traveling to Sodom to observe the situation for himself. If things aren’t as bad as the outcry has suggested, he will know this after making his own observations.

Obviously, this doesn’t fit well with the Trinitarian understanding of God. YHWH isn’t composed of three parts that, once combined, become an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God. However, this is what the text suggests. Follow along.

God is not omnipresent.

Genesis 18:21 (ESV): I will go down

God is not omniscient.

Genesis 18:21 (ESV): And if not, I will know.”

God is not omnipotent.

Genesis 19:24 (ESV): 24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.

God must travel, gather intelligence on the target, and coordinate an attack with other persons of the Trinity. Hence, as a unit God possesses the three omni traits. However, as individual persons, these traits are not inherent.

Now at this point we should note that Christians do believe that when Jesus takes on human flesh, he surrenders some of his divine powers. This could explain things, and this is where the “why” becomes of crucial importance.

God needs his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence for this mission. He must know all that is happening, this knowledge must be exercised in multiple places, and he must rain down destructive fire. So presuming God simply continues to exist in heaven, he is well suited for this mission. However, he decides to lay down these necessary traits and do things the hard way. For what purpose?

The source of confusion.

In Sam’s video, the confusion is centered around the first two verses of chapter 18.

And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. 2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him.

Genesis 18:1–2 (ESV):

Sam reads these two verses as saying that YHWH visited Abraham as one of the three men he looked up and saw. His Jewish counterpart reads these verses as saying YHWH appeared to Abraham, and then three men approached. I’m here to offer a third possibility for your consideration.

What if all of these visitors are YHWH?

Don’t worry, I haven’t gone LDS on you. But the fact of the matter is this. Sometimes those who are representatives of God are called God, or even YHWH in the Bible. Consider the case of Moses.

So the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

Exodus 7:1 (NET):

Here I have used the NET translation so I can reference their note on the translation. It reads “The word ‘like’ is added for clarity, making explicit the implied comparison in ‘I have made you God to Pharaoh’.” In other words, this verse explicitly refers to Moses as God. Moreover, it is not the only one. In Deuteronomy 7, Moses warns the Israelites against marrying Canaanite women. In verse 4, he says the following.

for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

Deuteronomy 7:4 (ESV):

Did you catch that? You either follow Moses, or you serve other gods. Furthermore, not following Moses angers YHWH. But all of this pales in comparison to how Moses usurps the divine name for himself in Deuteronomy 29.

And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: “You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, 3 the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. 4 But to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. 5 I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet. 6 You have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink, that you may know that I am the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 29:2–6 (ESV):

Mind blowing, is it not? “You have seen all the YHWH did… …that you may know that I am YHWH your God.” Here Moses, a mere man representing YHWH, takes the name YHWH for himself. Now, let’s take this information back to Genesis 18 & 19.

Are there any other clues that this is the correct interpretation?

In his video, Sam Shamoun makes hay of the fact that YHWH tells Abraham he is going to Sodom, then he departs. However, nowhere in these two chapters do we see the arrival of YHWH in Sodom. Why not? Unless, of course, we read it through the interpretive lens that I have suggested here. In that case, when the two men/angels arrive in Sodom, YHWH is in fact there. And this is precisely what we see in Ezekiel 16.

48 As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

Ezekiel 16:48–50 (ESV):

Without ever being explicitly placed in Sodom, YHWH declares that the sin in Sodom was committed before YHWH. Why? Because the 2 men who visited Sodom were YHWH, just as the one man who stayed behind with Abraham was likewise YHWH.

Conclusion:

The author of Genesis 18 doesn’t have a solid theological lexicon with which to present the omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence of God. Hence, he creates his own framework which gets him to that end. God ultimately knows everything, because he has an intelligence network. He is everywhere, because he can travel. Moreover his is omnipotent, because his task force can call in a military strike against Sodom from the ground. And this grants the 3 omnis to YHWH, because all of these beings are YHWH.

Genesis 18 and 19 are not even remotely Trinitarian. If we attempt to apply that framework, it opens so many more questions about God. However, if we read it through the lens I’ve presented here, it actually solves problems. How can humans be called not just God but YHWH? Because they are acting as agents of YHWH. This is how Moses can say that if you’re not following him, you’re following other Gods. It’s also how Jesus can say no man comes to the father except through him. They aren’t claiming to be YHWH, they are claiming to be his agents.

Sam’s original video:

The post Does Genesis 18 & 19 Support the Trinity? appeared first on Biblical Anarchy.

Scholars tell us that Isaiah has at least 2 authors. Second Isaiah starts in chapter 40. You may have noticed, this is where we started in our last article. This would mean that Isaiah 40-53 were written during the Babylonian exile, not a century earlier. Even if this view were rejected, one has to accept that it is written about the time of the exile. Hence, we need to look to Jeremiah, who was writing during this time.

Jeremiah’s cup of staggering.

15 Thus the Lord, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it. 16 They shall drink and stagger and be crazed because of the sword that I am sending among them.”
17 So I took the cup from the Lord’s hand, and made all the nations to whom the Lord sent me drink it: 18 Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, its kings and officials, to make them a desolation and a waste, a hissing and a curse, as at this day;

Jeremiah 25:15–18 (ESV):

Do these words sound familiar to you? Let’s go back to Isaiah and refresh our memories.

22  Thus says your Lord, the Lord,
your God who pleads the cause of his people:
“Behold, I have taken from your hand the cup of staggering;
the bowl of my wrath you shall drink no more;
23  and I will put it into the hand of your tormentors,
who have said to you,
‘Bow down, that we may pass over’;
and you have made your back like the ground
and like the street for them to pass over.”

Isaiah 51:22–23 (ESV):

This concept of the cup of staggering and the bowl of wrath definitely ties these two passages together. However, at this point we have to consider a third passage.

Daniel 9, desolation, and 70 years.

18 O my God, incline your ear and hear. Open your eyes and see our desolations, and the city that is called by your name. For we do not present our pleas before you because of our righteousness, but because of your great mercy.

Daniel 9:18 (ESV):

This desolation that Daniel speaks of is the desolation of Jerusalem following the Babylonian destruction. But what is this period of 70 years he starts off with earlier in the chapter?

Daniel’s Prayer for His People
9 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans— 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

Daniel 9:1–2 (ESV)

Jeremiah’s 70 years

For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.

Jeremiah 29:10 (ESV):

Jeremiah prophesied repeatedly that Israel would return from the Babylonian exile in 70 years. In fact, they returned in 48 years. That’s important, so remember that. However, Jeremiah also prophesied things that would happen when they returned.

9 But they shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them.

11 For I am with you to save you,
declares the Lord;
I will make a full end of all the nations
among whom I scattered you,
but of you I will not make a full end.

18  “Thus says the Lord:
Behold, I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob
and have compassion on his dwellings;
the city shall be rebuilt on its mound,
and the palace shall stand where it used to be.

Jeremiah 30:9, 11, &18 (ESV):

There are several obvious problems here. Israel did return from exile. However, they did not all return, and the nations who oppressed them were not destroyed. Moreover, while the city was rebuilt, the promise of the Davidic king was left unfulfilled. These details required a reinterpretation of the prophecy. Now, remember how the exile was 48 years instead of 70? Let’s go back to Daniel 9 and see if this detail makes it into the reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s 70 years.

Daniel 9, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.

The author of Daniel is looking back at the prophecy of Jeremiah, and asking why it didn’t come true. He assumes, logically, that it is due to the sins of the people. However, Gabriel appears to inform him that he’s actually misunderstanding the prophecy.

21 while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He made me understand, speaking with me and saying, “O Daniel, I have now come out to give you insight and understanding.

Daniel 9:21–22 (ESV):

Gabriel informs Daniel that the prophecy wasn’t actually for a period of 70 years, as it appears in Jeremiah.

24 “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.

Daniel 9:24 (ESV):

So it’s not a prophecy for 70 years. Rather, it is a prophecy for 70 weeks of years, or 70 periods of 7 years. Therefore, it is 490 years. And remember how the exile was actually for 48 years? Well, our reinterpretation of the prophecy here in Daniel fixes that problem, too.

25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

Daniel 9:25 (ESV):

Who is this “anointed one,” this Messiah, who comes after 7 weeks, or here 49 years? You guessed it. Isaiah already told us, it’s Cyrus the great (Isaiah 45:1). Daniel then breaks down this period of weeks of years to match events that have unfolded since then, leading all the way to the period of the Hasmonean Dynasty.

The problem with pushing Isaiah 53 out.

And this is, for me, the ultimate deal breaker on reading Isaiah’s prophecy in relation to Jesus or the end times. Isaiah and Jeremiah were speaking about the triumphant return of Israel to Zion. However, their respective prophecies failed. Daniel then reinterpreted these prophecies to apply them to his time. This also failed. Therefore, when we reinterpret Daniel to fit our current theology, we are reinterpreting the reinterpretation of two other prophecies that we are likewise reinterpreting to fit our agenda. The following conclusion is a much more fitting and logical interpretation of the data. Isaiah and Jeremiah had a beautiful dream for Israel. However, it failed to come true. Move along.

The post Can Isaiah 53 Be A Distant Prophecy? appeared first on Biblical Anarchy.

Isaiah 40:

This passage is about comforting Israel after some military defeat. See verse 1 which tells us that “her warfare has ended” offering comfort. As we read on, we will see which defeat is being referenced.

Isaiah 41:

God reassures Israel that he is on their side, even after this defeat would imply the opposite. Verse 9 assures Israel that they are God’s servant, and he has not cast them off.

Isaiah 42:

God continues his reassurance of Israel, while pointing out why this military defeat has come upon them. Verse 19 says “who is blind but my servant?”, referring to their role in the destruction they have experienced.

Isaiah 43:

God declares that he will save Israel. Here we also learn which military action is being referenced. Verse 14 says that for the sake of Israel, he will bring down Babylon.

Isaiah 44:

This chapter presents a juxtaposition of the true God against idols. It then reaffirms Israel’s status as God’s chosen servant. God will redeem Israel from Babylon, it tells us in closing.

Isaiah 45:

God introduces himself to Cyrus the Great, called here God’s Messiah (anointed in many translations).

Isaiah 46:

God declares that Cyrus is the bird of prey, the man of his counsel that he has called from a far country. Cyrus is acting at the behest of God. See verse 11.

Isaiah 47:

God will humble Babylon. Verse 3 tells us that he is the actor exposing their disgrace to the eyes of the world.

Isaiah 48:

God presents himself as the one who directs the events of history. He establishes that it is he who is rescuing Israel from Babylon. Verse 20 informs Israel that they will go out from Babylon shouting that YHWH has redeemed his servant Jacob.

Isaiah 49:

God will restore Israel to a place of world prominence. Kings will be like fathers to them, and Queens their mothers. Verse 25 says that Israel, the prey of the tyrants, will be rescued. God will contend with those who contend with Israel,

Isaiah 50:

Israel is informed that they were defeated as a punishment from God for their iniquities. However, God is still on their side. He asks to see his bill of divorce from their mother in verse 1.

Isaiah 51:

God will comfort and redeem Israel. He has taken from their hand “the cup of staggering” and they will no longer drink from the “bowl of his wrath,” verse 22.

Isaiah 52:

Verse 3 says they were sold for nothing, and will be redeemed without cost. Isaiah breaks in with a short poem about the beautiful message of deliverance. Verse 12 tells them they will go out from Babylon in haste.

Isaiah 53:

Now we have arrived at the heart of the matter. So before we read the following information, let’s review the information we have consumed in the preceding passages.

• The servant is the nation of Israel.
• The messiah is Cyrus the Great.
• The punishment of the servant is the Babylonian captivity.
• Salvation is the rescue of the servant from captivity.
• Exaltation is the servant being restored to the land of Israel.

Now, read the suffering servant poem from Isaiah 52:13 through 53:12. Once you understand what the poet is actually saying in the poem, feel free to add your own interpretive lense. Is there a second, deeper meaning? Does the prophet want you to read more into this text? We will discuss these possibilities in part 2 of this article.

The post Isaiah 53 Explained In Context appeared first on Biblical Anarchy.

Doctor James Kugel:

Dr. James Kugel is a Hebrew professor at Harvard University. He is also an Orthodox Jew. In his book “How To Read The Bible,” he discusses the broader controversies surrounding this passage and its translation in Matthew. However, he also narrows down to this specific issue of the importance of the direct object. Here is what he has to say on the matter.

The exact identity and nature of the “certain young woman” who gets pregnant in Isaiah’s above-cited oracle is somewhat controversial: was she a real person, or merely hypothetical? To begin with, it is unclear whether the first word of Isa. 7:14 is to be translated as “Behold,” “Look,” and the like, or (as I have done) “Suppose . . .” The latter is indeed sometimes a meaning of the Hebrew hinneh (for example, in Exod. 3:13, “Suppose I do go to the Israelites . . .”) and would seem to fit the context better, since in those preamniocentesis days one would probably not say, “Behold! This woman is pregnant and is going to give birth to a son.”97 The next word, ha-‘almah, translated as “a certain young woman,” might also be rendered simply as “the young woman.” Some scholars have in fact suggested that the definite article here implies a known individual—perhaps Ahaz’s own wife, or Isaiah’s. (The woman in Prov. 7:19 says, “The husband is not in his house,” but what she really means is my husband.) However, biblical Hebrew sometimes also uses definite articles and even demonstratives in an indefinite sense,21 in the same way that an English speaker might say, “This guy came up to me and started talking French,” where “this guy” really means “an undefined person, someone I never met before.” Considering this ambiguity, “a certain young woman” seems to preserve better the vagueness of the Hebrew: she might be known or might not be. As for “young woman,” that is how ‘almah is usually translated nowadays; the word does not necessarily tell us whether she is married or not.22

“How To Read The Bible by James Kugel

So we see here that this isn’t necessarily a case of preconceived religious notions driving the translation. According to this Orthodox Jewish Hebrew Scholar, there is justification in thinking that Isaiah may not have even had a specific woman in mind. However, it is worth noting that Dr. Kugel is the only scholar that I have seen putting forth this interpretation. Therefor it could be a minority view. So I headed over to the NET Bible, a Christian publication, to check their notes on the verse and this is what I found.

NET Bible Notes on Isaiah 7:14

For this reason, the Lord himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

“The Hebrew article has been rendered as a demonstrative pronoun (“this”) in the translation to bring out its force. It is very likely that Isaiah pointed to a young woman who was present at the scene of the prophet’s interview with Ahaz. Isaiah’s address to the “house of David” and his use of second plural forms suggests other people were present and his use of the second feminine singular verb form (“you will name”) later in the verse is best explained if addressed to a woman who is present.”

NET Bible Isaiah 7:14 with notes.

Not only do we find supporting evidence for both views, but both views are able to find support from unfriendly sources. Thus, I am forced to conclude that both authors are justified in their respective interpretations. However, it does seem unreasonable to me for either of these individuals to expect the other to inform their audience of the opposing view. They are, after all, theologically motivated individuals looking to teach their own understanding.

I, on the other hand, am merely interested in discovering what the text really says and means. I am also interested in your opinion. Which argument makes more sense to you? Let me know in the comments down below!

The post The Direct Object in Isaiah 7:14 appeared first on Biblical Anarchy.

Bible verses related to abortion.

Numbers 5:27–28 (ESV): And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.

Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV): 22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Numbers 3:40–43 (ESV): And the Lord said to Moses, “List all the firstborn males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking the number of their names. 41 And you shall take the Levites for me—I am the Lord—instead of all the firstborn among the people of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the cattle of the people of Israel.” 42 So Moses listed all the firstborn among the people of Israel, as the Lord commanded him. 43 And all the firstborn males, according to the number of names, from a month old and upward as listed were 22,273.

Genesis 2:7 (ESV): 7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

The Didache on abortion.

By contrast, the Didache has a very strong passage against abortion.

Do not abort a child or kill babies.

Didache Chapter 2

Further thoughts on the topic:

After I posted the first video, I got some questions about my assessment of Numbers 5 and the Jealousy Law. Here was my response to that.

If you enjoy these short videos on a given topic, please follow me on TikTok for more.

The post Is The Bible Opposed to Abortion? appeared first on Biblical Anarchy.

There’s no doubt that the Book of Enoch is uncomfortable for Christians today. There are both bizarre and heretical teachings found in it. But one cannot escape the fact that it clearly influenced New Testament authors, and their understanding of the scripture.

For more quick hitting videos like this from me, make sure you follow me on TikTok.

The post Is The Book of Enoch Scripture? appeared first on Biblical Anarchy.

Mike Jones says we are looking at prophecy the wrong way. He makes 3 specific points about how prophecies were viewed in the ancient world.

Prophecy then vs now.

1. Prophecy is conditional. The prophesied blessing or curse may or may not happen based on the response of the intended audience.
2. The timeline can be lengthened or shortened, making the prophesied event occur earlier or later than prophesied.
3. Prophesies can be partially fulfilled, making certain aspects happen and others not happen.

My problem with Mike’s view.

Applying this to Jesus’ prophecy of his return, we have some serious problems. This means Jesus may or may not return. Furthermore, it implies that his return could be tomorrow, or 2,000 years from tomorrow. Who knows? Moreover, it would mean that Jesus may or may not raise the dead, reward the righteous, and/or judge the wicked when he returns. If he returns. And yet, despite all of these issues, the prophecy would be fulfilled.

This reduces prophecy to a position less meaningful than a wild guess. Prophecy becomes completely unfalsifiable. At least a guess can be proven right or wrong. Prophecy cannot be. Moreover, if Mike is correct, church teaching on the return of Jesus needs to be seriously revamped. Perhaps he isn’t coming back at all. There’s no way of knowing. Yet his prophecy would still be accurate.

The problem here isn’t the skeptics. Rather, it is the prophecy itself. Of course skeptics will doubt a claim that could be proven correct by never happening.

The post Was Jesus a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet? appeared first on Biblical Anarchy.

1. Yes, the men were the problem, but…

Here Dr. White focuses on a specific verse, but leaves out a very crucial detail to understanding the passage.

Genesis 19:4 (ESV): 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house.

He is correct that the word translated “men” specifically means only the males. However, the word translated “people” does not. Yet when breaking this verse down, he fails to notice that all of the people of the city, women included, surround the house. Yes, the men are the aggressors, but it is important to note that the women have an interest here as well.

2. The missed context in Ezekiel.

Dr. White complains that when referencing Ezekiel 16, many people leave out verse 50. While I agree that this approach is problematic, his approach is none better. He simply reads the verse while ignoring the context of Genesis.

Ezekiel 16:48–50 (ESV): 48 As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

Here, Ezekiel points out that Sodom had committed sins that brought God down to visit judgment on them. These sins are explicitly identified as pride, and failure to care for the poor and needy. Removing verse 50 obscures the point that they also committed some type of abomination after God arrived on the scene. Dr. White thinks he can identify that abomination.

3. The false claim about homosexuality being the only abomination.

This is disturbing, because this claim is a complete fabrication. Yes, Leviticus 18:22 identifies men with men as an abomination. No other sexual sin has that Hebrew word in the verse describing that. However, one has to read in context.

Leviticus 18:26–27 (ESV): But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you 27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean),

Verse 26-27 call all of the sexual sins listed in Leviticus 18 abominations. Can we finally move on from this false teaching that only homosexuality is described as such?

4. Misunderstanding Jude.

James White then goes to 2 Peter and Jude to highlight their references to Sodom and Gomorrah. However, he completely misunderstands the passages.

Jude 6–7 (ESV): 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,

The words translated “unnatural desire” actually mean “strange flesh.” James White interprets this as “sexual desire for relationships that are forbidden to you.” However, in the context we can see the problem with this view. Both Jude and Peter follow the same order.

• Angels are bound.
• Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed.

Jude quotes First Enoch, so the reference is unequivocally clear. This is a reference to the “sons of God” who impregnated the “daughters of men” bringing on the worldwide flood of Noah. Therefore, the clear meaning of these passages is as follows.

5. Proper exegesis.

Before the flood, angels impregnated humans, creating nephelim or giants who ruled over humans and abused them. God punished those angels, binding them until the day of judgment. Jude says the people of Sodom “likewise” pursued sexual immorality “in the same manner” that these angels did, so they too were judged.

Reading this understanding back into Genesis, we see that the men of Sodom tried to kidnap the angelic visitors to force them into impregnating their daughters. This would recreate the nephelim, making Sodom and Gomorrah the world powerhouse that could then engage in world empire. They would use these giants to exploit the resources of the world for their own gain. Thus, Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality.

The post Was The Sin of Sodom Homosexuality? appeared first on Biblical Anarchy.

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us. One of these men must become with us a witness to the resurrection.

Acts 1:21-22

Paul would, however, join the cause later on. Called directly by Jesus in a visionary experience on the road to Damascus, he would go on to become arguably the most famous apostle. And while he hadn’t spent time on earth with him, he would go on to have further encounters with the risen Jesus. During these encounters, he claimed that Jesus revealed the gospel to him directly. Thus, he didn’t receive his information or authority from any man.

For I didn’t receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:12

For this reason, I want to take a close look at a controversy that occurred on Paul’s 1st missionary journey. He was traveling with Barnabas, John Mark, and others. Acts 13 and 14 reports on this journey, but our story starts in Act 15.

Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark, but Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone on with them to the work.

Acts 15:37-38

This dispute turns out to be the bitter breakup of the team of Paul and Barnabas. There has been much speculation about what caused John Mark to leave. Why was Paul so insistent that John Mark couldn’t rejoin them? The text doesn’t answer our question. Hence, there has been much speculation. Was it spiritual warfare? Homesickness perhaps? Either answer could work, but we just don’t know. What we do know is that Paul and Barnabas continued on without him.

After a brief stop in Antioch of Pasidia, the group traveled to Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and Lycaonia before heading off to Syrian Antioch. Moreover, this is where our story unfolds. Acts 15 says “some men came from Judea” and were teaching the Christians there that they must be circumcised according to the custom of Moses in order to be saved. A big debate ensues, which culminates with the first recorded church council in Jerusalem, recorded in this chapter. However, I want to take a look at Paul’s account of this dispute.

What really happened in Antioch?

Galatians 2 gives us a fuller account of the events that occurred in Antioch. He claims in verse 2 that he went to Jerusalem “because of a revelation” and explained the Gospel that he preached. Here, Paul seems to be saying he would not back down from his gospel because it had been revealed to him. Verse 4 is very telling, and shows some animosity on the part of Paul.

Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery, to them we did not yield even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

Galatians 2:3-4

Why does Paul think that these “false brothers” were secretly brought in? And why in verse 2 does he say that he explained the gospel he was preaching to them, to make sure he was not running in vain? Was Paul preaching a different gospel than they were? Is this why he calls it “my gospel?”

It’s hard to read this account without connecting these dots. It’s speculative, sure. But did John Mark leave the group and go to Jerusalem to report that Paul was teaching the Gentiles that they didn’t need to be circumcised and follow the law to follow Jesus? This would have caused James to send the men Paul calls “false brothers” and would explain why Paul refers to them as “spies.” What happens next lends further to this interpretation.

The Antioch Feud.

IN verses 11-13 Paul calls Peter a hypocrite, and accuses Barnabas of being deceived. What is clear is that everyone sided with the Jews from Jerusalem, leaving Paul standing by himself with the Gentiles. We are often told that the dispute was over Jews eating with Gentiles, but this sells the story short. Here is what Paul says to Peter in verse 14.

If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Galatians 2:14

This fight isn’t over table manners. It’s over conversion. In Acts 15:1 we’re told that the Jews from Judea were teaching that unless you were circumcised (became a Jew) you couldn’t be saved. Here in Galatians 2 Paul says that Peter was trying to force the Gentiles to live like Jews, even though he had been living like a Gentile. So what happened here?

It appears that Paul had a different Gospel than James and the Jerusalem Jews had. However, he had received his gospel directly from Jesus at a later date. So perhaps Peter and Barnabas accepted this and carried on. John Mark went to James to inform him of the new teaching. James sends men that Paul calls spies to see if this is true. They inform Peter and company that James is not on board with this new teaching, so he and Barnabas return to the old gospel, one of separation between Jews and Gentiles. Paul disagrees, so the matter is debated in the Jerusalem Council.

The Jerusalem Council

Acts 15:2 implies that Barnabas sided with Paul. This seems to conflict with Paul’s version of events in Galatians 2. However, Acts 15:7 shows that Peter did lobby for Paul at the council, and Barnabas likewise spoke highly of their success among the Gentiles. The meeting ended with a compromise and a letter being sent to the Gentile churches that shows the decision that James reached.

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements; that you abstain from idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these you will do well.

Acts 15:28-29

The first thing to note is what goes unsaid. It’s taken for granted here that Jews still have to follow the law. This isn’t even debated. The second noteworthy thing is that Gentiles have a law to follow as well. This is in the Jewish tradition of “God Fearers” or “Righteous Gentiles.” Those who follow God by keeping a moral law for the nations, but not becoming circumcised and part of the Jewish nation. Today, these are called the “Noahide Laws.”

But did Paul live up to this agreement?

In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul teaches that it is acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols. In verse 8 he says “we are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.” Again in chapter 10 verse 25 he says to “eat whatever is sold in the market,” a reference to meat sacrificed to idols. In 27 and 28 he says it’s ok to eat it in front of unbelievers, unless they point out that it is sacrificed meat. He also says to avoid it if it offends the conscience of another.

Why is Paul teaching a message that directly contradicts the first church council decision? Again, we must remember that Paul has a more recent revelation from Jesus. It is possible, therefore, that he knows something that they don’t. This issue would rear it’s head one more time between Paul and James in a final standoff in Jerusalem which results in the Romans saving Paul from the Jews, and his arrest and eventual execution.

Paul and James meet again:

In Acts 21 Paul returns to Jerusalem where James informs him that the Jesus followers there are “zealous for the law” (verse 20) and have been informed that Paul teaches Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake the law (verse 21). He offers Paul a chance to disprove these accusations by observing a Jewish purification ritual. Paul agrees, but this doesn’t likely represent a change of heart. In 1 Corinthians 9:20 Paul says “to those under the law I became as on under the law, though not being myself under the law.”

Paul performs the ritual, but the events unfold badly for him. He is arrested and hauled off to save his life from the angry mobs. Eventual he is hauled off to Rome to stand trial. Church tradition has it that he would there be executed by Nero. And thus ends our story, were it not for one more thing. We couldn’t possibly know if James is correct, and followers of Jesus should follow the law, or if Paul is correct in saying that Jesus freed us from the law. The only way to know for sure is if Jesus weighed in on the topic. Did he reveal to Paul that the law is over, or was Paul confused, deceived, or lying?

Jesus weighs in.

Around 30 years after this fateful day in Jerusalem, a man named John had been banished to the Isle of Pathmos. He has a revelation from God, writing the book that reflects this in it’s name. It starts off with an introduction, then we get letters to seven churches. One of them is the church in Thyatira. Here John is told by an angel to write “The words of the Son of God” which would be Jesus.

In Chapter 2 verse 20 he calls out a prophetess referred to as “Jezebel” who teaches the church to “practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.” Verse 24 is fascinating.

But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold to this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say I do not lay on you any other burden.

Revelation 2:24

It’s interesting that we get the same language seen in Acts 15. Both in the statement of the offense, and in the qualifier of laying no other burden on them. What is clear is that in this, one of the latest New Testament books to be written, the Acts 15 decision still stands. It is a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Thus it is clear that believers are not free from the law of Moses. Jews must still be observant, and Gentiles must accord themselves to the Noahide Laws.

Where do we go from here?

Applying Occam’s Razor to this problem leads me to the conclusion that Paul is wrong. his is the only solution that makes sense of all of the data without unnecessarily multiplying entities. Since we don’t know why John Mark left Paul, we are forced to assume either way. But assuming illness, unreliability, or spiritual attack leaves us wondering why Paul and Barnabas couldn’t resolve their disagreement.If it were a matter of reliability, it seems logical that Barnabas could be reasoned into backing down. Were it health or spiritual attack, we could expect Paul to give him a second chance. This doesn’t mean that it would happen, but it’s a reasonable assumption.

If, however, we assume John Mark had a theological disagreement, everything falls in place. Paul sees Barnabas as persuadable since he argued on his side. John Mark would prevent such persuasion. So here’s how I see this playing out.

What likely happened.

Paul and Barnabas are on their mission. Paul starts preaching his freedom from the law message, which Peter and Barnabas question. Paul claims it was revealed to him by Jesus, and they accept this explanation. John Mark does not. He leaves for Jerusalem to confirm this change in the gospel with James. James is opposed to the change, so he sends people to confirm the report and order this teaching to stop. Peter and Barnabas agree, reverting to the old message. Paul refuses, seeing the men as spies. He continues to preach his freedom gospel and everyone is ordered back to Jerusalem to resolve the matter.

In Jerusalem, Peter and Barnabas defend their actions by citing similar revelations. However, James insists on moving forward without a change in the gospel. After agreeing to honor the longstanding Jewish traditions in regards to God Fearers, James sends a letter to the gentile churches to ensure they know about the associated laws. He sends Paul and Barnabas back out trusting John Mark to report any deviations. Paul, not wanting peering eyes over his shoulder, refuses John Mark so the pair splits.

Paul returns to his churches, finding his way challenged by the believers who have been informed that he was in error. It appears that the church in Corinth asked him for letters of recommendation before coming (2 Cor 3:1). “Oh foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” he asks in Galatians 3:1. The pressure builds until, on a return trip to Jerusalem, James demands that he purify himself and come under the law again. He reminds Paul about the letter that was sent to the Gentiles, then sends a letters to all the Jews in the Diaspora to inform them that Paul’s teaching is wrong.

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion; Greetings.

James 1:1

He uses the same passage from Genesis that Paul used to say we are saved by faith alone to inform those Jews that faith without the works of the law is dead. The rift is now so deep that when Paul is arrested and accused of being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Jewish Jesus followers, Acts 24:5) he disputes this claim by identifying himself as belonging to a sect called “The Way” (Acts 24:14).

Conclusion:

In Galatians 1, Paul rants against the Galatians for turning away from his gospel to “another gospel” that was given to them by “some who want to trouble you and distort the gospel of Christ.” He tells them to reject any teaching other than his own. “But even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” he declares in verse 6. Did he have any reason to believe an angel from heaven would oppose his gospel? According to Revelation 2, one did.

Saul of Tarsus was a man on a mission. His mission was to destroy the church that Jesus had built and James was running. The book of Acts tells us of his conversion. In context, we are forced to consider that Saul never had a change of heart, only a change of name and tactics. Perhaps Saul decided that the best way to destroy the movement was with another name and another gospel. Because if Revelation is to be believed, his gospel didn’t come from Jesus.

The post The Heresy of the Apostle Paul appeared first on Biblical Anarchy.