Michael S. Heiser's Blog, page 17

The PDF Handbook to my second novel, The Portent

Those of you who read The Portent, the sequel to The Facade, know that The Portent ended with a riddle for readers. Part of the riddle and a clue was in the book, while part was in a companion handbook. The riddle was part of a contest to have a character named after you in book three (yes, that’s in progress). The contest is over (two people solved the riddle), but some readers have requested the handbook just to have it and to take a whack at guessing. So here it is:

HandbookPORTENT

NOTE: If you have not read The Portent do not read the handbook — there are spoilers.

The post The PDF Handbook to my second novel, The Portent appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Naked Bible Conference Speaker and Topic Profile #2

Our first speaker and topic profile for this summer’s inaugural Naked Bible Conference focused on Dr. Bill Arnold. Our second speaker and topic profile takes a look at Dr. Archie Wright.

Dr. Wright will be familiar to some who follow the podcast and follow me on Twitter, along with folks who read footnotes in The Unseen Realm. I used Dr. Wright’s seminal study on the origin of demons in Second Temple Jewish literature and have given copies away on two occasions. Anyone interested in the topic should have it:

The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6:1-4 in Early Jewish Literature, Revised Edition [image error]

Dr. Wright’s topic for the Naked Bible Conference is “The Reception of the Satan Tradition in Second Temple Judaism and the Gospels.” It’s well known to my readers that the Old Testament does not know a “capital-S” Satan. The Hebrew term śaṭan is not used as a proper personal name in the Old Testament as that term is prefixed with the definite article (the particle in Hebrew meaning “the”). Like English, Hebrew does not tolerate a definite article before proper personal names (I’m not “the Mike” — I’m just Mike). Consequently, the śaṭan in Job 1-2 isn’t the New Testament devil. He’s a supernatural being with a specific role to play in the divine council (and of course in Job’s circumstances). The same is true in Zechariah 3 and 1 Chronicles 20. All that said, there is a cosmic arch-enemy of God in the Old Testament (the serpent figure) along with other divine rebels. Dr. Wright’s topic will focus on how the term śaṭan came to be used of the original divine rebel and how that figure evolved into the leader of all evil spirits in the Second Temple period on into the New Testament. If you’ve ever wondered about how all that came about, this is the perfect time to hear from a scholar whose academic focus has been on such matters.

The post Naked Bible Conference Speaker and Topic Profile #2 appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Naked Bible Conference Speaker and Topic Profile #1

I’ll be blogging a few thoughts on each speaker and topic for our upcoming (August 18) Naked Bible Conference. You can read the full abstract of each speaker and topic at the website. My thoughts here are just to give you all a heads up as to why I invited the speaker and encouraged the topic.

Today’s thoughts are in regard to Dr. Bill Arnold and his topic, “Israel In, Among, or Against Its Neighbors? A Singular Israel in a Pluralistic World.”

If you read the abstract on the conference website you’ll realize that Dr. Arnold’s topic has something to do with the common notion (especially online in places like YouTube) that Israelite thought either derives from Mesopotamian religious texts, or is evidence that books like Genesis “really” teach the same polytheistic religion of Israel’s ancient Near Eastern neighbors. These ideas spring from what’s called panbabylonianism — the notion that the material for the book of Genesis and other passages is dependent on (or stolen from) Sumerian or Babylonian texts. The relationship between biblical and Mesopotamian material is much more complex than this notion, but that doesn’t stop internet “researchers” from making such claims.

Dr. Arnold has written about the history of this idea in several places. I’ve blogged about it as well and linked readers to some of Dr. Arnold’s work. He’s the ideal speaker to address the topic for Naked Bible readers and podcast listeners. Come hear him this August in Dallas!  He’ll be eager to answer questions about this issue.

The post Naked Bible Conference Speaker and Topic Profile #1 appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Registration for Last MEMRA Module for 2018 Now Open

Registration for the MEMRA language courses is now open. Beginning biblical Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic are offered. Registration will remain open until June 30. The courses start on July 9.

NOTE: The MEMRA courses are traditional first-year courses. They go through a grammar and require a lot of memorization. They are not at all like the “Learn to Use” tools-based course that I helped create for Logos Bible Software / Mobile Ed.

The post Registration for Last MEMRA Module for 2018 Now Open appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Does the Bible Teach Science? How the Bible’s Own Context Answers the Question

Here’s the latest “infographic” video from Shaun. I think this audience will appreciate it a lot and find it useful for helping others to think through this issue. I’ve written (and commented in podcast episodes) that the Bible was not intended (by God) to teach modern science. This video illustrates that perspective. Underneath the video are my comments about the issue drawn from the FAQ on this website.

From Mike’s FAQ:

You have written about your belief that the Genesis creation accounts were not intended to put forth science. If we are not to understand Genesis 1-2 literally (i.e., as a scientific sequence of events), how is it that you advocate taking other passages about supernatural beings as literal?

A non-literal view of Gen 1-2 creation accounts isn’t a non-literal view of creation. God created. How he did it is the issue of disagreement. His creative acts are literal — they happened in real time. The Gen 1-2 description of those acts is something different. I’d argue that God prompted the writer to inform readers that he was the creator — a literal truth. The means to that end (how the writer conveyed the reality of God’s creative work) shouldn’t be conflated with the end itself, the fact of creation.

God picked the writers and knew what he was getting — and didn’t care that the writers weren’t omniscient. The act of producing Scripture doesn’t require God transfer his omniscience about the natural world to the writers. Had God put modern scientific knowledge into the head of the writer for the purpose of satisfying later readers, the original readers wouldn’t have known what the writer was talking about. That defeats the enterprise and purpose of communication.

Since we have such information in the Bible, and that informative isn’t scientific, that tells us the purpose of God prompting people to write wasn’t to produce science — else we would have science. And so the authority of Scripture needs to be assessed in accord with God’s intent (not what we wish was his intent). That means we let the Bible be what it is and not criticize it for not being what it was never intended to be. Atheists do that all the time – criticize the Bible for not being scientific, but in so doing, they criticize it for not being what God intended it to be. That makes as much sense as criticizing your dog for not being a cat. And I tell that to atheists, asking them to justify their approach, since it makes little sense to me. So, if God didn’t care to produce science (and that’s evident in terms of what we have and who he picked to write), we shouldn’t judge God’s decisions. We don’t know better than God.

This was actually very wise on God’s part. Why? because if God inspired Scripture today and the writers wrote with the scientific precision of today, in a thousand years the product would still be criticized — because science changes. By not typing the content to science, God had people produce something that transcends science, and always will.

This was also wise on God’s part because he knew that, as time went on, humanity (in accord with the Edenic mandate to subdue/steward the earth) would discover more and more about the natural world. Knowledge of nature is EXPERIENCED and OBSERVED in the normal course of human life and generations. God knew that. And so his aim wasn’t to tie his revelation to nature, as that would create discord and tension within it. It would be leashed to time and the change of human knowledge and experience.

Two more things in light of all this.

1) The above applies to knowledge gained through experience and observation, made knowable by human endeavor (technology — the tools of science). Knowledge of God and the spiritual world, by definition, is not gained through the tools of science. Therefore we CAN look to Scripture for such information and must judge its validity by its coherence — the coherence of ideas like there’s a God, that God could give information about himself, is capable of doing things (like create other things, become a man, influence people to write books, etc.). These ideas are completely coherent and have been defended logically for millennia (by believers and unbelievers alike). So non-scientific thinking in the Bible on the part of the writers doesn’t damage information about the knowledge that cannot be know via the tools of science.

2) The biblical writers were quite capable of dispensing true, inerrant statements about God and his plan (or historical events) without being scientists. Since when must we know science perfectly (or even well) to be able to say something true?  In other words, I can articulate an idea that is completely true by means of using an illustration from the natural world that might not reflect good science. The illustration or argument is a trajectory or conduit leading to the assertion or proposition. The thing claimed and the means of making the claim are not the same things. So a biblical writer can say something unscientific on the way to making a completely true statement about something. We do that all the time because we’re human. I can tell my five year old that God made them because helped mommy and daddy know how to do that. I’m not being scientific, but the truth proposition (God made you) is still true because God is the source of all life, and our bodies are functioning as God designed them to function when we have sex and mommy becomes pregnant. It’s not a scientifically provable articulation, but the proposition I used it to defend is completely coherent and true. The means of telling can have a flaw but the proposition we’ve uttered can still be completely true. This is how, for instance, I take Hebrews 7 — distinguishing the claim / proposition about the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood to that of Levi despite an unscientific argument used to defend it (that we have whole human persons [Levi] in the loins of a male — that isn’t possible, as we know how human persons are formed — we can do it in a test tube — they are not formed inside a man, only a woman — or a test tube, using my dated language).

One final note. This question and its answer is related to another question I get from time to time: Do I believe the earth is flat? No, I don’t. I think modern belief in a flat earth is willfully ignorant and based on nonsensical conspiratorial thinking.  It is also deeply flawed thinking to believe the earth must be flat since Israelite cosmology describes a round, flat earth (for reasons noted above). It’s tragic that anyone in modern times would believe something so stupid and then tie that to biblical faith.  That drives people away from the gospel, which has eternal consequences.

The post Does the Bible Teach Science? How the Bible’s Own Context Answers the Question appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

First Annual Naked Bible Conference: Dallas, TX

It’s on!

After months of hinting that our first Naked Bible Conference was going to happen, I’m thrilled to announce the details. The conference will be a day-long event in Dallas, TX on August 18, 2018. Truth be told, the site went live while we were in Israel, so some of you have already heard. For those who haven’t, click the image to go to the site and register!  SEATING IS LIMITED and the event will NOT be live-streamed.

 

Here’s the list of speakers and their topics. You can read about each speaker on the conference site.

8:00 am – 9:00 am

Registration

9:00 am – 9:10 am

Introduction

9:10 am – 10:00 am

Dr. Michael S. Heiser: The Divine Council in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls

10:10 am – 11:00 am

Dr. Bill Arnold: Israel in, among, or against Its Neighbors? A Singular Israel in a Pluralistic World

11:10 am – 12:00 pm

Dr. Archie Wright: The Reception of the Satan Tradition in Second Temple Judaism and the Gospels

12:00 pm – 2:00 pm

Break for lunch

2:00 pm – 2:50 pm

Dr. John Hilber: Since When Is Literal Interpretation “Normal”?—Reconsidering a Popular Assumption

3:00 pm – 3:50 pm

Dr. William (“Rusty”) Osborne: Reaching for the Heavens: Tree Imagery and Kingship in the Bible and the Ancient Near East

4:00 pm – 4:50 pm

Dr. Daniel Street: Flood, Fire, and Festival: How the Nephilim and Noah’s Flood Unlock the Mystery of Yom Kippur and the Final Judgment

5:00 pm – 7:00 pm

Q&A with all scholars

I’ll be blogging about each speaker and topic in the weeks to come, but I’ll be general — and blunt — at this point.

This is no run-of-the-mill “Bible conference” of the type to which folks who follow this blog and the Naked Bible Podcast may be accustomed. You’re not going to be preached at. You’re not going to hear speculation presented as Bible teaching. You won’t be reminded of Sunday School. The scholars I’ve invited are real scholars, not enthusiasts who self-publish and who are known only on the internet. We’re bringing some of the best scholars in the world to you, the lay audience and pastor, who deeply care about exposure to solid biblical scholarship made comprehensible. If you want a conference where you’ll really learn something and can trust that what you hear is based on peer-reviewed research, then this is the event of the year. Don’t miss it — register now. The audience limit (300) is firm and cannot be changed.

The post First Annual Naked Bible Conference: Dallas, TX appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Thoughts on the Year 70 Israel Tour

As many of you know, I just returned from a trip to Israel. The trip was created and conducted by Lipkin Tours. Along with Derek and Sharon Gilbert, I was a host on the tour. This allowed me to comment on certain sites and content points along the tour as we were led by our guides. Folks have asked for some thoughts on the tour and so I’ve jotted a few down here. The pictures and video below are courtesy of Mike and Debbie Sprawls, a couple I was blessed to meet on the trip and who were among the folks on our bus. I’ll post a few more pictures later when my wife and I are able to get to taking those off our phones.

To start, it’s probably no surprise to learn that I’m not an enthusiastic traveler. I’ve commented on the podcast and this site that I thrive in routine. Travel disrupts routine, so you can do the math there. The tour was pretty exhausting. The days were long and the nights were also often scheduled. There was a lot of walking (we logged 7.5 miles one day — or so my wife’s fit-bit told us). My advice is that, if you consider going on an organized Israel tour, be advised that this is the way it is. It requires a certain amount of stamina. I didn’t have an issue there, save for a stubborn sciatica / disk problem that I’m plagued with off and on (it was on during the trip). That produced two really rough days, but we powered through with the aid of Ibuprofen and some stronger meds a doctor friend (thanks, Jay!) gave me during the trip. Again, be advised. But all that said, the trip was certainly fun and a blessing.

The best part of the trip was the people I got to meet. I’m not patronizing when I say that. I mean it. It’s fun to meet people who devote their time to what I write and say via the podcast. It affirms to me that the content is useful and meaningful. Truth be told, I know that in my head and think long term about it, but it’s nice to know it has an impact now and not only later. Trey appreciated it as well. I heard a number of people thank him for his work on the podcast. He deserves it, as he puts in more hours on an episode than I do. I also enjoy meeting people who use the content in some way to do ministry or intentionally pass it on to others. If you’ve followed my work for any amount of time you know that word-of-mouth is the engine that drives the dissemination of the content. It’s indispensable. Lastly, I enjoy hearing how people first came in contact with Unseen Realm or the Naked Bible Podcast. Both have had an amazing reach. We had people on the trip from South Africa, New Zealand, Canada, and states from Alaska to Florida. Again, word-of-mouth is the key.

As far as the trip itself, my favorite time was the short excursion / worship time on the Sea of Galilee and the camel ride with my wife. There’s just something about floating on the Sea of Galilee. Not sure why, but it has more impact for me than ruins, even when the ruins are authentic. Maybe it’s a closer reproduction to something Jesus actually did. As for the camel, I don’t know why, but I like them. They’re like large pugs with long legs I guess. I rode one on my only other trip to Israel 32 years ago, so this time I was hoping we’d bump into one so I could get another ride. If someone on the trip has a picture of my wife and on the camel, please send it to me!

We hit several sites that I had not been to 32 years ago: Bethel, Yardenit (the location along the Jordan that tradition associates with John the Baptist’s activity), Shiloh, Dan, the Valley of Elah, and last but not least, Banias / Mount Hermon. All you have to do is see the massive rock outcropping at Banias to know what Jesus meant by “upon this rock” (and the theology behind the place also leaves little doubt, as I discuss in Unseen Realm). I also never got to really tour the larger Western (Wailing) Wall area 32 years ago. We spend almost two hours walking around the whole area before visiting the wall. I didn’t realize the extent of the monumental stone building. The blocks were impressive as was the vertical engineering involved (Roman era). Again, no aliens needed. I’m glad I got to see these places, as they are all meaningful in the biblical story and the theology Scripture puts forth via the events at those places.

On that last point about Banias, the same can be said for the view atop Mount Carmel, a place I’d seen before. Once you look out and see the valley adjacent to Megiddo you know it cannot be the reference point for Armageddon. That place name (har-mageddon in Greek transliteration; see Rev 16:15) requires a mountain (har) for its namesake, and so you only need ask of the valley at Megiddo, “Where’s the mountain?” to see that Megiddo has nothing to do with Armageddon (i.e., there’s no mountain at Megiddo; see Unseen Realm Chapter 41 for that discussion).

Here are some pictures (in order):

View of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, showing the cemeteries in front of the golden gate.
The Valley of Elah, the place where David killed Goliath
Me at Yardenit (Jordan River)
My wife of thirty years and I on the boat on the Sea of Galilee (What a babe! Wonder if she’ll see this post).
Peter’s house at Capernaum with adjacent (later) church added (yes, that Peter, and yes, it’s the real deal).

 

Lastly, here’s a video of me giving the shorthand meaning of baptism (from the lengthier treatment of 1 Peter 3 in Unseen Realm) at Yardenit preceding a baptismal (Derek played the John the Baptist role).

 

 

 

The post Thoughts on the Year 70 Israel Tour appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

What is the Bible’s Big Story? Part 5

This is Part 5 of a guest series by Dr. Ronn Johnson. I’m planning on posting some thoughts of my own on his series (thus far) in the near future.  I think Ronn’s presentation of the way the notion of substitution is put forth in evangelicalism is on target. As to analysis, my own corrective differs a bit, as it depends on (and derives from) terminology I’d use. Stay tuned!

 

From my count, I am up to the 10th brick on the evangelical Big Story wall. Please refer back to Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 if you need to get up to speed. I will only look at two bricks in this post, due to the importance they seem to carry.

God instituted OT sacrifices to teach the general concept of substitution

In my last post I recommended that the practice of animal sacrifice was not invented by God. This is a new idea to some, I understand, though I believe the evidence supports it. We know that sacrifices and offerings were part of ancient religion long before Moses, and that Torah’s instructions regarding sacrifice mirrored many of the ceremonial practices of foreign nations. It is often helpful to turn to traditional Judaism for a question such as this, especially when it concerns a practice so foundational to Israel’s history and culture. Here is a selection taken from The Teaching Company’s course entitled Introduction to Judaism (taught by Shai Cherry from Vanderbilt University) concerning the origin of animal sacrifice:

“Sacrifice was a commandment, but it was also a concession to human psychology. Here’s how it works. [The medieval Jewish theologian] Maimonides said in The Guide of the Perplexed, that, quote, ‘A sudden transition from one opposite to another is impossible.’ What he means is that people can’t go from understanding everything about the world in one way to understanding everything about the world in a completely different way. They need time to adjust. He says this in context of the Israelites being freed from slavery in Egypt where they were steeped in idolatrous practices. Those practices included animal sacrifices. So Maimonides says that when God brought the Israelites out of Egypt into the desert, the only way the Israelites knew to worship God was through these animal sacrifices. So as a ‘gracious ruse,’ or as a ‘noble lie’—there are different translations of that platonic idea—God allowed the Israelites to continue in this idolatrous practice of sacrificing animals, but to the right address. In other words, the only thing that changed was the address, so that way the Israelites could still feel that what they were doing was efficacious. What they were doing was still worshipping God, even though that’s not the most noble, the most authentic way of worshipping God—because God doesn’t need it.” (italics added)

I realize we should be wary of labeling any one view within Judaism as “standard.” The rabbis have always been adept at collecting and even appreciating dissenting and minority opinions among their ranks. At the same time modern Jews hold the views of Maimonides in highest respect. Personally, I believe his opinion about the origin of sacrifice makes good and practical sense. So if it is accurate—if sacrifice makes its way into the Bible not as an invention by God but as a concession to the psychology of mankind, akin to divorce laws (Deut. 24:1-4; cp. Matt. 19:8)—then we as evangelicals are guilty of giving sacrifice (as a bare practice) too much meaning in our theology. We need to change the word “instituted” on this brick to something closer to “allowed” or “permitted,” before moving on to what OT Israelites were supposed to learn from the sacrificial system.

But now let’s move on to the question of substitution. Did God allow OT sacrifices to teach the general concept of substitution?

I started struggling with this brick several years ago, after teaching it for over twenty years as a Christian college prof. You could guess that this is not a brick that evangelicals like to debate. It sets up so much of our larger theology, or our larger story (or we presume it does). It is a brick that stabilizes a huge portion of the Big Story wall. At least that is what it feels like when I talk about the idea of substitution with my theologically-minded friends. So I appreciate your patience here as I challenge the idea by asking some background / preliminary questions:

1. What do we gain by believing that sacrifice includes substitution? Better, let’s ask this the other way around: what would we lose if we do not include substitution within sacrifice? I am not asking, yet, whether the view itself is right or wrong; I am just asking a question going in. I have often received odd looks (or perplexed emails) when I have asked this question, sometimes even getting what feels like a hand-over-the-mouth aghast reaction. It is like I am rejecting some important doctrine. But then I remind them it’s only a question: Why should I include substitution in sacrifice? What is the value?

2. When an answer to #1 is offered, does it come directly from the Bible? Let’s say a person were to say “Substitution is important because it’s the way God can teach the sacrificer about divine hatred for sin.” I’ve heard this argument many times. My reply, you could guess, would be But where is this actually said? Remember that the bricks for our wall need to be ideas that are actually stated, or actually happening, in the Bible. We can only dream of a text where someone stops mid-sacrifice to look into the camera and say “This teaches me God’s hatred for sin.” Short of that, or in want of that kind of explanation for sacrifice, I do not feel led to think that sacrifice teaches hatred for sin, nor that it teaches the general principle of substitution. At least it would not teach me that if I were the one doing the sacrificing. My mind would go elsewhere. This leads to my next question:

3. If sacrificing taught substitution, what is exactly being substituted for what? If I were bringing a trespass offering after contacting an unclean carcass, for example (Leviticus 5:2-6), I may experience a passing sense that the animal is taking my place on the altar, but this would be a momentary emotion only. I know I do not deserve to die—I’ve only touched a carcass, and probably plan on touching another carcass next week—and yet I have just killed an animal for my trouble. There is no substitution here. (Again, if the argument comes back, “Oh, but you did deserve to die,” I would need to hear this discussion played out in the Bible. Torah gives us plenty of opportunity to say something like this, and it is never said. This should tell us something. Or not tell us something.)

4. To go philosophical on this question, what does substitution say about God? Knowing what we know of Yahweh, how would he be satisfied in substituting one thing for another, such as an animal for a person? Jesus acknowledged that animals are nowhere as valuable as people (Luke 12:24), and yet substitutional sacrifice seems to presume at least some kind of equality. I find the entire concept of substitution out-of-bounds for the character of God.

5. Outside of the impersonal world of bookkeeping or accounting, do we as humans ever deal in substitutes? We are not allowed to do it in a court of law (“Your honor, my neighbor has volunteered to go to jail for me”) nor do we imagine doing it in the course of human relationships (“Sorry I offended your spouse. Is there something I can give you?”). I just find it odd to think that God would be open to the idea of substitution when our normal human condition is so opposed to it.

6. As for the text, why is the Bible so silent on the topic of substitutionary sacrifice when given the chance? The Hebrew and Greek words for “substitute” or “exchange” (chalaph and mur, Lev. 27:10; antallagma, Mark 8:37) are not uncommon (some 50 times from what I’m seeing), but they are never used for the subject of how sacrifice works. In test-driving the idea of substitutionary sacrifice, one of the first proofs we would look for would be a text which states the idea simply and clearly. But this is not what we find.

I welcome your comments to these questions if you believe good answers are available (my email is at the end of this post). Meanwhile, I am content to say that this brick needs some help if it is to find a place on our Big Story wall. Maybe it can just be reworded, as the idea of a “proxy” (a representative who leads the way for others while not actually becoming a substitute for them) will certainly play a significant role in describing our ultimate salvation. But that discussion will come later when we start to build the wall. For now, I am content to set all talk of substitutionary sacrifice aside. It will not play a role in the Big Story.

God’s wrath against sin was temporarily assuaged because of OT sacrifices.

This seems to represent a key turning point for the interpreter who is moving from the OT to the NT. Similar to what we have seen before, the wording on this brick seems to be the result of thinking backwards: If Jesus’ death finally solved God’s wrath against sin (a later brick we will talk about), and if Jesus’ death was a substitutionary sacrifice (another brick we will talk about), then that means that the substitutionary sacrifices which came before Jesus (i.e., OT sacrifices) must not have finally solved God’s wrath against sin. Thus the logical inference is that OT sacrifices did partially what Jesus’ sacrifice did fully as it concerned God’s wrath. I will recommend that this whole idea is unnecessary, and that the logic is faulty on the front end.

The wording on this brick changes slightly from author to author, and I can pass along two examples here. I mentioned earlier that I took a free Dallas Seminary online class entitled “The Story of Scripture.” Here is the professor’s exact wording on his brick: “God is willing to accept a temporary substitute for sin, and God’s grace allows judgment to be postponed until sin is dealt with in totality.” So he speaks of God postponing sin’s judgment, which seems to be another way of saying that God’s wrath is temporarily assuaged. The professor’s comment was based on Romans 3:25, the verse which is commonly appealed to for arguing this postponement idea. Here is the verse: “Whom God set forth to be a propitiation in his blood, through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.”

I will look at what Paul meant by “passing over sins” in a moment, but here is another example quotation, this one coming from Douglas Moo’s commentary on Romans: “Paul’s meaning [in 3:25] is that God postponed the full penalty due sins in the Old Covenant, allowing sinners to stand before Him without their having provided an adequate satisfaction of the demands of His holy justice (cf. Heb. 10:4). In view of this, it is clear that ‘his righteousness’ must have reference to some aspect of God’s character that might have been called into question because of His treating sins in the past with less than full severity, and that has now been demonstrated in setting forth Christ as the propitiatory” (Romans 1-8 [Moody, 1991], 241-2).

So Moo’s argument is similar, where God’s wrath is postponed presumably through OT sacrifices. But now let’s ask what Paul could have meant by “passing over sins” in Romans 3:25. I sense we have quite a leap to make between the two ideas of “passing over” sin and “postponing the payment” of sin.

Here again is Romans 3:25, plus the beginning of the next verse: “…because in his forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at this time his righteousness . . . .” We notice that Paul’s larger argument concerns God’s righteousness, concluding with the realization that no one can boast because of it (3:27) and that one God will save Jews and Gentiles in the same way, through faith (3:30). Many commentators interpret the idea of righteousness (dikaiosune, used 92 times) along the lines of legal justice, even repayment, but I find this to be a forced idea that does not bear up behind the normal use of the word across the NT (e.g., 2 Cor. 9:10 uses dikaiosune in the sense of gratuity and kindness, almost the opposite of justice or repayment, and numerous other uses [Matt. 5:6, 10; 6:33; Rom. 6:18; Gal. 5:5; Eph. 5:9; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Pet. 3:13] signal general virtue which would not be associated with straightforward justice). My point is that we need to decide the general meaning of righteousness before figuring out what “passing over sin” means since the two ideas are so closely tied together in Romans 3:25. If we prepackage dikaiosune to mean justice in the legal sense, we will likely interpret “passing over sin” legally as well. This is what Moo does, coming up with the idea of “postponing the full penalty due sins” as his explanation of how God “passed over sins that were previously committed.”

So let’s pause and ask what Paul would have thought about righteousness. Did he think that God’s righteousness (Heb., tzedaqah) was primarily a legal concept, something that demanded a get-what-you-deserve “justice”? On the contrary, Paul read an OT which commonly tied God’s righteousness to his mercy and grace (“Gracious is the LORD, and tzaddiq/dikaios [LXX]; yes, our God is merciful,” Ps. 116:5; “The LORD is tsaddik/dikaios [LXX] in all his ways, gracious in all his works,” Ps. 145:17; cp. Ps. 36:5-6, 10; 37:21; 85:10; 89:14; 145:7-9; Prov. 12:10; 21:21; Hos. 2:19; 10:12; Mic. 6:8; Isa. 57:1; Jer. 10:24; Dan. 4:27; 9:18). This OT evidence leads me to suspect that Paul’s reference to “passing over sins” in Romans 3:25 is hinting toward God’s graciousness more than to what Moo calls the “adequate satisfaction of the demands of His holy justice.” It strikes me that Moo is making this idea up out of thin air, in fact.

The phrase “pass over” in Romans 3:25 is our translation of the single Greek word paresis. The word occurs just once in the NT, here in this passage. Mounce believes paresis means “let pass, pass over,” a word which is not meant to carry much theological weight. It certainly gives us a word picture to ponder on how God would treat sin. If I “pass over” someone’s sin again me, it may mean I just let it go, or it may mean that I hold a grudge until a later time when I can whack him. In God’s case, could his “passing over” sins include the idea of “postponing” deserved punishment? It might, depending on how we think about God’s righteousness. For remember, Paul’s larger argument is very careful: God’s righteousness was demonstrated in his passing over [paresis] of sins previously committed.

Here’s my opinion on God passing over sins in Romans 3:25—and I think the answer presents itself fairly easily. In the OT, God was in the business of forgiving sin (“But [Yahweh], being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and did not destroy them,” Ps. 78:38). Various analogies are used to describe God forgiving sins, including “bearing” or “lifting” them (nasaʾ, Gen. 50:17), “releasing” or “pardoning” them (salach, Lev. 4:20; Num. 30:5), “covering” them (kasah, Ps. 32: 1; 85:2), and “healing” them (raphaʾ, Ps. 103:3). We never get the sense from these common word pictures that God is postponing his anger for some later time as he bears/lifts/covers someone’s sins. We are not surprised, then, to also hear of God “passing over” sins with no hint of postponement or deferment of punishment: “Who is a God like you, pardoning (nasaʾ) iniquity, and passing over (avar) the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in mercy (chesed). He will again have compassion on us, and will subdue our iniquities. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea” (Micah 7:18). Paul may have had Micah’s prayer in mind when he spoke of God passing over sins. Even if he didn’t, the theology of “passing over” sins holds; it is synonymous with forgiveness. There is nothing in the biblical phrase generally, nor in Romans 3:25 specifically, that indicates that God is postponing punishment.

So what role does righteousness have in God’s forgiveness? What might Paul have meant by saying that “the righteousness of God was demonstrated” when he forgave previous sins—presumably those in the OT? Again, I think the answer is fairly simple, coming straight out of the OT story: By faithfully and consistently forgiving the sins of his people, God was showing his propriety or his righteousness as the covenant-keeping God of Israel (Exod. 34:6-7; Num. 14:18; 2 Chron. 30:9; Neh. 9:17; Ps. 86:15; 103:8; 111:4; 112:4; 116:5; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3). God was righteous in the sense that he always did what he said he would do, in this case forgiving the sins of those who were faithful to him. Drop this idea into Romans 3:25-26, and Romans 3:27-30 makes sense. This will be an important brick in my understanding of the Big Story, so I will spend more time on this text later.

We can do one more thing to help us toss this brick aside in good conscience. Think again of the specific wording on the brick: God’s wrath against sin was temporarily assuaged because of OT sacrifices. How would the Bible sound if this were true? It is reasonable to assume that the words “wrath” or “anger” would appear somewhere in a conversation about sacrifice in the OT. So let’s ask our computer to do a word search: How many times do the Hebrew words for wrath or anger (the best options would be aph [275 times], evrah [34 times] or qatzaph [34 times]) appear in a verse having to do with sacrifice in either Exodus, Leviticus, or Numbers (where the subject of sacrifice is most prevalent)? When we hit Enter we get this result: “Then Moses made careful inquiry about the goat of the sin offering, and there it was—burned up. And he was angry [qatzaph] with Eleazar and Ithamar , the sons of Aaron who were left” (Lev. 10:16). That’s it, one verse—and it isn’t even about God at all.

If you would like to respond to this post, I welcome your emails to ronnjohnson7@gmail.com. I will certainly reply.

The post What is the Bible’s Big Story? Part 5 appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Mike Interviewed on Bible Gateway About the 60 Second Scholar “Brief Insights” Series

Yesterday Zondervan’s launch of my 60 Second Scholar three-book series became official (the books are now shipping). I was interviewed on the well-known Bible Gateway site about the series. Have a look and please tell people about the books! I also got my first celebrity endorsement! Thanks, Mori!

 

The post Mike Interviewed on Bible Gateway About the 60 Second Scholar “Brief Insights” Series appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

FringePop321 Video Channel Launch!

If you’re a subscriber to my newsletter, you know that we’ve been working on a new YouTube Channel for almost a year. I saw “we” because my non-profit ministry (MIQLAT) is partnering with AllAboutGod.com in this effort. The show (and channel) is called FringePop321. It seeks to provide video content on all sorts of fringe and pop culture subjects — to help people think clearly about the topic and to challenge fringe claims.

The task has been to build a queue of episodes in order to upload one video per week. We now have enough episodes to launch and so here’s the first episode — on whether the Stele of Naram Sin is evidence of an ancient rocket ship!

Each episode will have a companion web page on the FringePop321 website that discusses the topic and provides research bibliography.

PLEASE subscribe to the FringePop321 YouTube Channel!  There’s a lot more to come — spread the word to your friends!

The post FringePop321 Video Channel Launch! appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.