Tag Archives: Biblical Theology & Doctrine

Naked Bible: Why Do We Do What We Do?

It’s exceedingly unusual for me to share emails here that I get from Naked Bible Podcast listeners, or folks who read my books, or someone who has otherwise benefited from the content I try to produce. But this one captures why we do what we do on the podcast that I asked permission to share it. It also reflects the dilemma in which so many of you find yourselves — trying hard to learn Scripture. I want you all to read it to get a sense of the problem, and why Naked Bible content needs wider exposure.

Here’s the email in its entirety, without personal identification:

Mike,

In between your new episodes on Hebrews I’ve been listening to Leviticus. The whole thing makes so much sense when one listens in conjunction with the other!

I want to help you understand how big of an impact the Lord is making through you:

I’ve grown up in the Church (I’m not referring to a walled building), and I’ve been studying the Bible since I was 8 (I’m now 32). I’ve got a BA in Biblical Studies and am in seminary right now. I’ve read close to everything I’ve been assigned over all these years. Literally the only thing I’ve learned that has been new information to me through all these years of schooling has been Hebrew (and I’m not an expert at that!). I’m saying that in all my years of schooling (including Christian grade schools) everyone, even up to the master’s level, has been teaching the same Sunday-school level Bible stuff. I’m finally challenged to learn when it comes to you and all of the authors you’ve exposed me to!

I say all of that to say that ever since coming across you around 2015 I’ve actually been learning new information. All these years I’ve been hearing the same old out of context stuff, and, like you often state, I’ve always known there was more to this. Since 2015 I’ve been reading so many other things that you’ve recommended, or that I’ve come across through being exposed to you. The scholarly realm was nothing before I “met” you. It was almost as if I didn’t know it existed (even though I knew it did). Now I’m reading N.T. Wright, Matthew Bates, John Walton, David Burnett, Ronn Johnson, David Tsumura, etc. The list goes on, and I’ve read many scholarly articles from people that I don’t even know their names (poor sentence structure there…).

Anyway, this has been an amazing ride, and it seriously is exciting to study the word again. All these things, all your objectives, have come to fruition in my life. I’m sure you receive emails like this all of the time, and I’m just a number to you (just kidding!), but seriously, brother, Yahweh is working through what you, Trey, and Logos are doing.

For the sake of a semi-short e-mail I can’t get into it all, but just know that I’ve essentially become like you. That is, if it’s not scholarly and peer-reviewed I just don’t mess with it. I’ve since seen how often the word is taken out of context. Undoubtedly, there are many out there with no ill will, but the end result is that they’re still taking so much out of context. Another thing that I’ve learned from you is your kaleidoscope approach. If it doesn’t fit the system but it has truth, then don’t disregard it! I’ve not been a fan of these systems growing up, but it’s only enhanced all of this for me.

Anyway, I could go on about all of this, but you get the point. Thank you for what you do. Please thank Trey for me (he’s the perfect co-host). May the Lord was your faithfulness to his word and to your commitment to all that goes into proper contextual interpretation.

Your brother …

 

Did you catch the line “even up the master’s level” it’s all been regurgitating the same old stuff? I know he’s on target, because I lived this and was once part of the problem. That ended the day the Lord awakened me to the fact that I shouldn’t be protecting people from their Bible. That epiphany has produced other challenges, of course, but I’ve never regretted it. I’d like to say I just sort of figured things out, but I didn’t. I had to be shamed by the Lord and convicted of what I was doing. This is why we’re serious about “naked” content. I care only about what the text can sustain, not what a denomination, tradition, or famous preacher says. The Lord didn’t put me (or you) here to perpetuate a sub-culture. But that’s what so much of institutionalized Christianity does. Since we don’t care about being academically trendy either, scholarship isn’t the end point. Serious scholarship is a means to an end: The Bible understood in its own context, not some later, imposed context.

The bottom line is that I can produce the content. Trey can make sure it gets out there (and make it fun). Brenda can produce the transcripts. Joe can keep my homepage running and looking sharp. Donors and friends can keep MIQLAT working and having a presence online. But ONLY YOU can expose people to what’s really going on here. If you want to learn, and want others to learn, and want friends to graduate from Christian Middle Earth, YOU are key to making that happen. Lord willing, I will be able to devote my entire week, every week, to producing content. But not being able to do that now isn’t going to prevent me from doing something. Emails like this help me answer the question, “What’s the point?”

Read More

Christians, Christmas, and Such

The latest episode of the Naked Bible Podcast just uploaded. The topic is on whether Christians should consider Christmas a pagan holiday. I hope you’ll give it a listen. I broke down the topic into two areas: the traditional date of Christmas (December 25) and what people do to celebrate Christmas. I thought I’d write a few thoughts today on Christmas in light of that episode.

As far as the first area goes, I’d blogged about that a short time ago. Contrary to what you’ll read all over the internet, Christians did not steal December 25 from pagans as the day to celebrate Christmas. Ancient data show it was the other way around. Listen and find out why. Here’s a hint: you have to understand that the effort to calculate the birth of Jesus spun off the early church obsession with calculating the days of the crucifixion and resurrection. That all took place long before the time of Aurelian, who is the reference point for the argument that the date is pagan. It also pre-dates the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Early Christians really didn’t care too much about that initially, though there was a lot of discussion about when it happened. The issue is that two dates (December 25 and January 6) were the two major candidates, and there is evidence of both being discussed by early Christians long before Aurelian’s time. (Note: both of those dates derive from trying to date the crucifixion, as well as a fairly strange belief in earl Judaism adopted by Christians; neither is astronomically coherent, much less in concert with a lot of other imagery that I discuss here and in Reversing Hermon: Enoch, the Watchers, and the Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ).

With respect to the second part, questions about celebrations (trees, Santa, etc.), those things certainly have pagan roots. But, as we discuss on the episode, theologically orthodox Israelite religion utilized pagan objects (e.g., cherubim, standing stones [maṣṣebot]) and that was permissible (and in the case of the cherubim, commanded by Yahweh). In the episode we touch on some of these things where the “pagan” element didn’t violate truth or result in blasphemy, and at least one time where it did (Yahweh was disrespected as part of the imagery). The contrast is informative. The issue for the use of any object is what’s going on in one’s heart and mind and not blaspheming God. If an object displaces Jesus, or the God of the Bible as the central point of remembrance of the day of Christ’s birth, that’s idolatry. Israelites could use objects familiar to pagans, but they were forbidden to bow down to them or have them replace the true God. We ought to be mindful of the same. The analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s relevant.

At times I get questions about holidays that Christians observe (or not). Usually those questions concern things like observing the Sabbath, observing holidays like Christmas or Easter, or preferring the festival-holiday calendar of Israel over traditional Christian observances. In my view, neither choice is wrong. These are conscience issues. Unfortunately, they are taken out of the realm of the personal — one’s own conscience and its relationship to one’s own walk with the Lord — and used for the basis for creating the impression that someone else’s spiritual walk is of lesser holiness. Permissions to eat XYZ or not observe XYZ day are not permissions to denigrate another believer whose conscience is weak or who is really blessed by observing a day or abstaining from a food. These permissions are not tools for defining spirituality or comparing ourselves with other believers. But that’s often what they turn into. In like manner, the abstainer or the observer isn’t given the permission to criticize the believer who makes the opposite choices to exalt their own spirituality, either. All such things are about conscience and deference. Paul made it clear in his letter to the Corinthians that he could eat the meat they were arguing about, but would gladly not do so for the sake of another believer. It wasn’t about him.

Consequently, if you would rather observe the Jewish feast days than the Christian calendar, please do so and enjoy them. The early church didn’t celebrate the birth of the messiah for centuries, though (per the episode above) they talked about the date. The New Testament never tells us to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Consequently, there is no basis for saying a refusal to observe Christmas is a moral wrong.  I also see no exegetical basis for calling the alternative decision morally amiss. There was also no command to  not celebrate the birth of the messiah. So if you want to remember the day of the Lord’s birth with celebration (even if you don’t get the right date!) that’s not a bad thing.

Paul, a converted Pharisee, relegated observing religious calendar or esteeming one day above another to the category of “doubtful disputations” (Rom 14:1, KJV; “opinions,” ESV). He wrote in that chapter (including the issue of disputed food with day observances ):

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

It’s important to realize (and any comparison of the two will show this to be obvious) that Romans 14 covers the same subject matter as 1 Cor 8-11, the classic “weaker brother” passage. Paul wants Christians to make choices of such things on the basis of personal conscience and love for the weaker brother — the one who cannot eat, or who “must” keep a day, or whose conscience would be troubled by keeping it or missing it. In 1 Cor 8 Paul doesn’t care about eating the meat sacrificed to idols because, for believers in Christ, the gods behind the idols are not being worshiped (“for us there is one god, and one lord”; cf. 1 Cor 8:4-6, 8). We get a little more of the context for this thinking in 1 Cor 10:25 — Paul offers the notion that if the meat is sold in the marketplace (i.e., it is removed from the altar or ritual context), that should help with one’s conscience. Apparently, the association with the altar and ritual was why he forbade the eating of the sacrificed meat in 1 Cor  10:19-22. He isn’t contradicting himself. Context mattered, and conscience, if the controversial item or act was removed from worship, was to be the arbiter. Paul concluded with the premise that one’s conscience should not be violated (“whatever does not proceed from faith is sin”; Rom 14:23).  Ultimately, though, decisions of conscience are not the reason we are in Christ. Choice A does not result in merit with God for eternal life, while Choice B results in damnation. Salvation is solely a gift of God. There is no merit. Believing loyalty of the true God in Christ was paramount.

Paul got into a related thought in Colossians 2:16-19, where he discussed having deference to fellow believers — but remaining loyal in one’s spiritual allegiance — in relationship to disagreements about food, drink, and observance of days:

16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

Paul hits directly on the Sabbath in the first part of the passage (and “new month” is a reference to following the lunar calendar — the Israelite calendar — and, by extension, religious events tied to that calendar). Paul tells his readers — primarily Gentiles (it’s the Colossian church) that they are under no obligation to do these things. But he never tells them it’s wrong to do so. He’s actually tougher in the verses that follow about worshipping angels (a particular Colossian problem) and taking instruction from someone’s visions (now there’s a lesson for today’s church). As readers of The Unseen Realm will know, parts of Galatians 4 hit on Jewish stoicheia (“first principles” – i.e., the law) while others have pagan stoicheia in the cross-hairs (astrology in particular):

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. Gal 4:8–11.1

Paul was concerned about simple, but profound things, on these matters: that the gospel wasn’t altered or lost, that no other gods were worshiped, and that believers loved one another. It shouldn’t be more complicated. If you want to observe Sabbath, and Passover, and any other Jewish celebration, bless you. If not, bless you, too. You don’t have to. But to be honest, as a guy who thinks the OT is regularly neglected, you might learn some OT by doing those things from time to time. You might see some new detail about the covenants, or the messiah, or salvation history.  Hey, you might even like it. But the caveat is still the same — none of this brings us merit before God.

Sometimes our decisions on such matters will have to do with being a good testimony to those to whom we want to win to the faith. That was also part of the “Christian liberty” context of the “doubtful disputations” Paul dealt with in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-11 (1 Cor 10:27-33). For example, Jesus participated in synagogue services on the Sabbath and observed Passover. He also reminded his disciples and adversaries that the Sabbath was created for man, not the other way around (Mark 2:27), and that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Matt 12:8). Paul went to the synagogue every Sabbath to tell people about Christ. Paul’s Judaizing enemies accused him of many things, but they never accused him specifically of violating the Sabbath. But did Paul not know that Jesus was our Sabbath rest? In the Naked Bible podcast episode on Hebrews 4:1-13 we get into that concept a lot. The real Sabbath rest is salvation apart from works — “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his” (Heb 4:9–10). Of course Paul knew what the gospel was — and what it wasn’t. But he never told people to reject the Sabbath. It wasn’t part of the gospel, and so had nothing to do with the gospel (there is no personal merit before God). But he did not forbid it. We should take the same position. Observe the Sabbath as a blessing, not an obligation or spiritual merit badge — and don’t follow that by insisting everyone must make the same choice. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us — long before we had any thought about what we should do about the Sabbath, or any care for what happened on the cross.

Casting the net even more widely, there are other days we may honor (or not). Scripture gives no command about observing birthdays or political holidays (e.g., July 4). The principle should be the same — let nothing displace or alter the gospel. Let nothing replace or deflect one’s believing loyalty in, and to, Christ (e.g., he outranks the State — all States, governments, and political authorities). And don’t let such things hinder love for each other:

34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:34–35

It seems simple, but there are those who will want to use such things to tweak fellow believers, to create agitation, to win an argument (I hope never to promote the State as the dispenser of truth and love — because it isn’t, nor can it be). In a pagan culture, biblical characters like Daniel and his three friends, had life and death decisions to make in that regard. So did the disciples. Specifically, they refused to be forced to sin (i.e., to disobey the clear command of God, the true King and Savior). That’s quite a bit different than “resisting” a law we don’t like as though there is some point of theology that requires doing so. Compulsion to sin isn’t the same as compulsion to do something that evildoers will capitalize on.2 The former demands that we swap in a new king for the rightful thing. The latter irritates or degrades us as citizens. Jesus and Paul told us to obey civil authority — and the context was the oppressive Roman state — and so we “render to Caesar.” When we have freedom to make one choice or the other, we seek first the kingdom of God (i.e., to obey clear commands in Scripture) and then default to conscience, love for the brethren, and a testimony that will win someone to Christ.

So let’s not use such things as food, day observances, holidays, etc. to vaunt our choices. Let’s not act as though our choices in “doubtful disputations” prompts God to feel warmer toward us than he does to some other brother and sister. When we do that, we fail to comprehend the love of God. Instead, let’s extend grace, have friendly (not confrontational) conversations about why you make (or don’t make) certain choices. If you are on the “weak conscience” side, another brother might be moved to show deference. And perhaps those of you on the “strong conscience” side can show love by surrendering some liberty. The truth is, we’re all on both sides somewhere. The goal should be to build each other up and be glad that our salvation doesn’t depend on such things.

 

  1. I wrote in a footnote on p. 327: “There is no consensus among scholars on Paul’s use of the term (Gal 4:3, 9; Col 2:8, 20). The question is whether Paul is using the term of spiritual entities/star deities in Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 20. Three of these four instances append the word to “of the world” (kosmos; i.e., “stoicheia of the world”), but this doesn’t provide much clarity. Paul’s discussion in Gal 4 and Col 2 includes spiritual forces (angels, principalities and powers, false gods) in the context, which suggests stoicheia may refer to divine beings. He is contrasting stoicheia to salvation in Christ in some way. Since Paul is speaking to both Jews and Gentiles, he might also be using the term in different ways with respect to each audience. Stoicheia as law would make little sense to Gentiles, though it would strike a chord with Jews. My view is that in Gal 4:3 Paul’s use of stoicheia likely refers to the law and religious teaching with a Jewish audience in view (cf. Gal 4:1–7). The audience shifts to Gentiles in 4:8–11, and so it seems coherent to see stoicheia in Gal 4:9 as referring to divine beings, probably astral deities (the “Fates”). Gal 4:8 transitions to pagans, since the Jews would have known about the true God. The reference to “times and seasons and years” (4:10) would therefore point to astrological beliefs, not the Jewish calendar. Paul is therefore denying the idea that the celestial objects (sun, moon, stars) are deities. His Gentile readers should not be enslaved by the idea that these objects controlled their destiny. As a related issue, Paul’s wording here cannot therefore be taken as a denial of the existence of other gods. Paul does not deny their existence in 1 Cor 8:4–6, which must not be interpreted against the context of 1 Cor 10:20–21, as it relates to the same subject matter. Paul is just denying that celestial bodies are gods that control one’s fate. This approach is also useful with respect to Col 2:8, 20, where the contexts seem to be pagan angel worship (i.e., worship of divine beings thought to have power over basic elements of the material world) and pagan asceticism. See E. Schweizer, “Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20,” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 455–68; Clinton E. Arnold, “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: ‘Stoicheia’ as Evil Spirits in Galatians 4:3, 9,” Novum Testamentum 38.1 (January 1996): 55–76.
  2. This distinction is clear, though muddled by circumstances –e.g., how the government spends our tax money. We must remember that Rome spent the tax money of the disciples any way it wanted to, for all sorts of horrible things, and Jesus and Paul endorsed paying taxes (Matt 22:17-21; Rom 13:6-7). God didn’t require omniscience or omnipotence on the part of the taxpayer (i.e., the ability to control circumstances). We must trust God to ultimately judge those who had the power to do evil and did, or who had the power to avert evil and who did not.

Read More

Was Jesus a Failed Prophet?

I’ve blogged on this topic before, but I’ve recently gotten a few questions on it in email. I decided to revisit it by posting some PDF resources.

Here’s the short answer to “Was Jesus a failed prophet?” Yes, if you don’t understand the idea of conditional prophecy, which occurs frequently in the Bible, and therefore read the New Testament deficiently. (Even shorter: Yes, if you’re ignorant).

When I blogged about this before, I drew attention to Chris Tilling’s post on a new book (now not so new): When the Son of Man Didn’t Come: A Constructive Proposal on the Delay of the Parousia, by Christopher M. Hays, in collaboration with Brandon Gallaher, Julia S. Konstantinovsky, Richard J. Ounsworth OP, and Casey A. Strine.that covers the subject. Chris introduced his post this way:

So Christians must choose. Either the NT isn’t even somewhat reliable, or Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. In either case this falsifies Christianity ”. So says John Loftus in his conclusion to his essay “At Best Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet”, in The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. 

Got your attention?

He sure did. Chris goes on to talk a bit about how prophecy is conditional — more than many realize. Lapsed fundamentalists like Loftus, who seem incapable of talking about Christianity in any way other than his caricature of the movement he left, certainly doesn’t know that (and likely has still not read the book recommended by Tilling). When I posted the link to Tilling’s blog, I mentioned conditionality as well. Below are three papers / essays by scholars relevant to this topic. The ones by Chisholm and Pratt specifically address conditionality in prophecy. Chisholm utilizes the work of Pratt, so it may help to read Pratt first. Bauckham’s essay goes a different direction. He points out, using examples outside the Bible, that the idea of “eschatological delay” wasn’t uncommon in apocalyptic literature. So, while something like the delay of the parousia might be upsetting or puzzling to us (because how many pastors actually teach their people about genre and context?), it would have been more familiar to ancient readers and thinkers.

Pratt Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions

Chisholm Contingency in Biblical Prophecy

Bauckham Delay of Parousia

Read More

Misquoted (Or Perhaps Misunderstood) in a Recent Book

This isn’t a big deal, but it’s sort of illustrative of how I can be misunderstood, and how Bible translations can be misleading.

I recently received an email that alerted me to the above this way:

The present globalist-versus-Christian war is taking place in both the seen and unseen (spiritual) realms, which are traceable to the beginning of mankind, according to theologian Michael Heiser, author of The Unseen Realm.  The original Edenic design outlined in Genesis failed due to man’s sin and was replaced by a new family from Abraham (Deuteronomy 32:8-9). That  resulted in the disinherited nations being put under the authority of lesser gods, divine sons of God who became corrupted, this resulting in the long spiritual war that continues today between Yahweh (the God of the Bible) and the fallen gods, demons.

Heiser speculates that these fallen gods (demons) wage war today as disembodied spirits of Nephilim mostly guided by the chief liar, Satan.  If we had spiritual eyes, Heiser wrote, we would see our world as mostly darkness peppered with lights of Yahweh’s (God’s) presence in the form of believers scattered across the globe, and we would see clearly that globalism and its followers are truly demonic….

Obviously, this isn’t a direct quotation of me. Rather the quotation comes from page 237 of Col. Bob Maginnis’ book, The Deeper State. The statement ends with a footnote to me — an interview I did with Bob for his book. Bob more or less summarizes things we talked about. But do you see the problem?

Bob refers to the lesser gods who were assigned to the nations (Deut 32:8-9; cp. Deut 4:19-20; 17:3; 29:24-26; Psalm 82, etc.). Those gods (at some point – we aren’t given the chronology in the Hebrew Bible) fell into rebellion against Yahweh. So far so good. But Bob’s statement suggests I think those fallen gods are demons. I don’t, because they aren’t. Demons are the disembodied spirits of dead nephilim (cf. Archie’ Wright’s scholarly work on this subject: The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1-4 in Early Jewish Literature, Revised Edition). Neither the nephilim nor their spirits have anything to do with the bad guys of Deut 32:8 and Psalm 82. They are two separate groups of rebels. I read a lengthy statement on this on the Naked Bible Podcast in connection with the episode of how the work of Fern, Audrey, and Beth differs from traditional deliverance ministry.

The mistake is illustrative of the confusion created by the way English Bibles translate Deut 32:17 (here, from the NLT):

17 They offered sacrifices to demons (shedim), which are not God (ʾelōah),
to gods (ʾelohim) they had not known before,
to new gods only recently arrived,
to gods their ancestors had never feared.

The word shedim occurs in that verse and is nearly always translated “demons.” This is an unfortunate translation that confuses OT theology about rebellious spirits. The shedim of Deut 32:17 are not the demons of the gospels (or 2nd temple Jewish literature). As I wrote in The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, the term shedim refers in context to territorial spirits. It is from Akkadian, where the term has a variety of semantic nuances, including territoriality. That fits perfectly with Deut 32:8. Unfortunately, though, a translation like “demons” misses the point of the term and its connection to Deut 32:8. English Bible readers like Bob often naturally conflate Deut 32:8 with what we think of as demons (i.e., those evil spirits Jesus exorcises from people in the gospels) because of the translation (and Christian tradition, which basically conflates all terms for evil entities into “demons”).

To summarize the material at the items linked above, there are three divine rebellions in the Hebrew Bible:

  1. The nachash (“serpent” or “shining one”) in Gen 3.
  2. The sons of God in Gen 6:1-4 (also called “Watchers” in 2nd Temple Jewish terminology; in Daniel 4 “Watchers” are holy, unfallen members of the heavenly host). Their offspring are the nephilim giants. When one was killed, its disembodied spirit was called “Watcher” (because their immaterial part was supernatural like those who created them), “demon,” or “evil spirit” in Jewish literature and the New Testament. These are what the gospels refer to.
  3. The lesser elohim of Deut 32 / Psalm 82 / Daniel 10 and other passages. These are called shedim in Deut 32:17 (“territorial entities / spirits”). They are not connected to the bad guys in number 2 above, or the nephilim.

There are other items I could pick at in the book’s excerpt. For example, the wording suggests the nephilim are somehow associated with Satan in the Bible (they work for him?). There is no such verse in Scripture that has the nephilim working for Satan. At best they have common enemies. Christian tradition tends to think of the supernatural evil world as monolithic and united in agenda. I don’t, as I’ve indicated in interviews. What does it mean that (human?) followers of darkness are “demonic”? Are lost people possessed? But the purpose of this isn’t critique — it’s to point out how Christian Bible readers can be misled by translation and tradition.

Read More

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 184: Hebrews 5:11-6:20

Our series on the book of Hebrews continues the writer’s emphasis on the faithful priesthood of Christ – this time as the basis for turning away from a theology of dead works and clinging to faith. The centrality of not turning from the true gospel of faith in the work of Christ and God’s acceptance of the ministry of his Son – of continuing in “believing loyalty” to the gospel – is the central focus of the controversial statements in Heb 6:4-6. Does this passage teach that believers can lose salvation or reject salvation? Is there a difference? What about eternal security? This episode focuses on these questions.

Read More

New Book: The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity

This book looks like an excellent reference for anyone interested in the study of the biblical canon: The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis.

A brief discussion of the book by one of its authors can be found here. The book will ship in January 2018. That summary reads in part:

The main attraction of the book–the reason you’ll want your own copy–is because John and I have collected all the biblical canon lists from the first four centuries of Christianity, and we present them in the original languages and English translation (in parallel columns) with introductions and extensive notes. So, you’ve heard so much about the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius, which listed for the first time in history the exact 27 books of the NT that we now accept, and you’d like to read the letter for yourself–our book has it, or the extant portions in Greek, anyway, with an English translation. Read the letter for yourself.

Read More

It Had to Happen: Heiser-isms About the Bible

A few days ago while I was traveling this popped up on my Twitter account:

10 Quotes That Challenge the Way You Study the Bible

It’s a post by Jake Mailhout of Lexham Press about my new book, The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching Scripture on Its Own Terms. While blogging about the post is a bit awkward for me, I hope it encourages you to buy a copy — or several — for yourself, friends, and family. Truth be told, the content of the book was written on company time, so I get no royalties. But I don’t do what I do to go to Tahiti. I want it to sell — a lot — because people who care about Scripture need such books. We can’t complain about lay people (and even pastors) not having a good grasp of biblical content if (a) scholars don’t write for them, and (b) people don’t buy the books and read them. This is a book with solid “Heiserian” content written for people who want more Bible but who are frightened by Christian Middle Earth. The same goes for its earlier companion, I Dare You Not to Bore Me with The Bible.

Both books, along with Supernatural would make excellent Christmas gifts — and help people graduate to The Unseen Realm.

Read More

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 178: Why the World Didn’t End on September 23

The short answer: Because the people who said it would are either inept Bible interpreters or false teachers.

For why that’s the case, listen to the episode – recorded on Sept 22.

Description:

September 23 has come and gone. The world didn’t end. Jesus didn’t return. There was no rapture. Planet X (Nibiru) never showed up. Why not? The answers involve both astronomy and sound biblical interpretation. We’ll leave the astronomy to experts in that field. We’ll consider the biblical reasons why the September 23 prophetic date-setting was nonsense. Those reasons are actually transparent, at least if we care about paying attention to the biblical text. In this episode of the podcast, we talk about five features of the passages used by false teachers who promoted Sept 23 as having end-times meaning. Join us for an episode on how to ineptly interpret the Bible.

Read More