Michael S. Heiser's Blog, page 3

Naked Bible Conference Cancellation

I’m guessing this doesn’t come as a surprise. Sadly, Trey and I have decided that it’s best to cancel the Naked Bible Conference scheduled for this August. We of course don’t know if people will be able to travel, but the greater uncertainty is that, even if travel is available, will enough people want to “take the risk” in doing so? The same concern overshadows hotel stays. Looming even larger, we realize that the whole situation is causing economic uncertainty for many. Many people who would have attended otherwise will be wiser to avoid spending the money on a trip and the conference, or simply be unable to do so.

Consequently, with all these very real uncertainties, we decided to wait until next year to have our conference. Lord willing, things will return to normal enough for everyone, especially those impacted most significantly by the coronavirus situation.

For those wondering about the cruise, we haven’t heard anything concrete yet from the cruise company. Since it’s months later in the year than the conference, they may just be waiting. We will pass on information when we have it.

The post Naked Bible Conference Cancellation appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Is Easter Named After a Pagan Goddess? (Re-post from 2018)

Easter is around the corner, and I was reminded of this post tonight during a Q & A session for the Awakening School of Theology and Ministry. It’s something I blogged in 2018 about the “pagan origins” of Easter. The idea is overblown and misguided. — it leads to a good scholarly article on the topic.

My advice — instead of telling our Christian friends (and maybe brothers and sisters in Christ living under the same quarantined roof) how pagan Easter is, let’s celebrate both Passover on Wednesday and the resurrection on Easter Sunday like we’re glad both of them happened, taking in their meaning for all who believe the gospel. Just an idea.

The post appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Would Jesus Say the Coronavirus is a Deserved Judgment on Wicked People?

There’s been a lot of talk online about how the advent of COVID-19 is an act of God specifically aimed at judging wicked people. While there’s no passage of Scripture that refers to the coronavirus (really … there isn’t), there is an interesting passage in the gospels that reveals the approach of Jesus to whether natural disasters should be parsed as direct judgments on sinful people. Given that there is such a passage, and given that it’s often neglected (I’ve certainly never heard a sermon on it), I thought it would be relevant for some brief examination with respect to the current course of events. To do so, I’ll be enlisting the help of a favorite New Testament scholar, Dr. Darrell Bock. I’ll be referencing vol. 2 of his massive two-volume exegetical commentary on Luke throughout this post.1

The passage in view is Luke 13:1-5 (most specifically, vv. 4-5):

1 There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Verse 1 begins with some unnamed people telling Jesus about the unjust death of some Galileans at the hand of Pontius Pilate. The immediately preceding context in Luke 12 saw Jesus discussing signs of the times (Luke 12:54-56) and settling debts owed (Luke 12:57-59). Bock writes of the way Luke 13 begins:

Perhaps Jesus’ previous remarks about the signs of the time caused the next topic to be raised by some in the crowd (Arndt 1956: 327). Is this a time of special judgment? Some people mention a recent incident in which some Galileans were put to death as they offered (or prepared to offer) their sacrifice. Neither the exact location of the attack nor the number who lost their lives is given. It need not have been in the temple proper, but more likely took place near the temple, as people approached with their sacrifices in hand. Pilate, the Roman administrator, used force, and death resulted. . . . The massacre may well have been associated with Passover, which is the only time that the laity slaughtered their own animals. Galileans most likely would be engaged in sacrifices during the feast. (Bock)

Bock goes on to discuss five events mentioned by Josephus that might be the incident to which Luke 13:1 refers. The candidates don’t concern us here. Rather, what is interesting is that Jesus responds with a question. Bock writes:

Jesus responds with a question. As he begins to comment, Jesus raises the question of theodicy,2 rather than focusing on politics. Did these events occur because of God’s judgment? Did these people suffer (πεπόνθασιν, peponthasin) because they were worse sinners than other Galileans? Had they received “measure for measure” for what they had given? Some seem to have reached this conclusion, which was a common Jewish reaction to such tragedy (Strack and Billerbeck 2:193–97). Jesus raises what would be the typical conclusion, only to reject it in his response. (Bock)

In other words, in Luke 13:2 Jesus raises the question he discerned was ultimately behind bringing the issue up. He answers it directly in v. 3: “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” The first part of that is clear—No, the tragedy that happened to those Galileans didn’t happen because they were more wicked than other people. But the second part is a little obtuse to our ears. Bock explains Jesus’ point:

Jesus rejects the common answer with a simple negative: this did not happen because the Galileans were more horrible sinners. Even more, Jesus does not pick up the question; rather he uses the occasion to give an additional warning about a more fundamental issue: the threat of a tragic end is present for all. . . . The issue is not when death will happen or why, but avoiding a terminal fate with even greater consequences. Only repentance will prevent the death that lasts (Luke 3:8; 6:24–26; 10:13; 12:58–59; 15:7). (Bock)

Jesus thus tells his audience they’re wrong to think about the tragedy in the way many of them were thinking. What each person within the sound of his voice (or reading Luke 13!) should be thinking about is how to avoid everlasting death. That’s far more important.

This brings us to the natural disaster I alluded to at the start. Jesus adds another layer to the discussion by reminding them of another incident: “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Bock writes:

In a second example, Jesus mentions an otherwise unknown incident involving the collapse of a tower at Siloam (also known as Shiloah). Siloam, a reservoir for Jerusalem, was located near the intersection of the south and east walls of the city (Isa. 8:6). The structural failure of what may have been nothing more than scaffolding killed eighteen people. Were those who perished worse sinners than others who lived in Jerusalem? (Bock)

The answer Jesus gives to the question he raised (” do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?”) is the same as his earlier one: No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” Bock unpacks the implication once again:

Jesus’ response to this second situation matches the first one. He rejects the assertion that worse sin was the cause of the tragedy and again issues the warning to repent. . . . Failure to repent definitely leaves one exposed to death. Thus, it is imperative that everyone repent. Jesus will close with a parable to stress the immediate danger in which the audience stands. There is need for a quick response. The threat, as in 13:3, is not Jerusalem’s fall, but not being able to stand before God.

In another commentary on Luke, also written by Bock,3 his summary of the passage reads this way:

In the discussion of the two tragedies in verses 1–5, the question emerges whether a worse level of sin causes a person to suffer a special judgment, either in being the victim in a series of events or in being the victim of a natural catastrophe. The temple massacre of the Galileans whose blood Pilate mixed with Jewish sacrifices raised the question whether God was exercising a special act of judgment against them. The collapse of a tower at Siloam that killed eighteen was a natural catastrophe—one of those things that just happens. But here the question also becomes, “Did God judge them for excessive sin?” In both cases the question is the same: Is God giving back to people what they deserved?

Jesus responds by changing the import of the question. The reason such events are so tragic is that they expose our mortality. Death exists in a fallen world, and nothing exposes our mortality more than when death comes suddenly and unexpectedly, cutting short a life that had the potential to be much fuller. Jesus argues that what should be contemplated is not the cutting short of these particular lives, but the fact that life terminates. This raises an even more basic question, what comes after that? How does one prevent the end from being the ultimate end? Jesus has taken a question about mortality and made it a question about the possibility of eternal punishment, which Scripture later calls the “second death” (Rev. 20:11–15). So he urges the people to repent, without which all will perish—only in a death that is more than a mere loss of mortality. His point is that with death comes a decisive encounter with God, one that does deal with sin. Whether one is a little sinner or a big one, repentance now is the only way to survive that coming encounter. (Bock)

I hope the application to the current situation is obvious. We have no biblical right to claim that the current pandemic was sent by God to punish sinful humanity. What believers ought to be fixated on is not infusing the hearts of unbelievers with fear and dread (or anger), but with hope–the hope of the gospel. That’s what readies us all for the everlasting life or death. What a difference it would make if Christians stopped wasting time online over-claiming the cause of this tragedy and instead engaged people in such a way that the gospel would gain a hearing and traction in hearts. Maybe if people took the time they’d otherwise invest in deducing some conspiratorial catalyst to all this and instead were kind to neighbors (“pre-evangelism”) so that the good reputation of Jesus could be restored in the culture, we could look at the pandemic as an opportunity. Even if you figured it all out (!) your mission doesn’t and won’t change. It’s the Great Commission.

Honestly, if you want to know how Christians should be behaving at this time, here’s an example — straight from Wuhan, China (transcribed with English translation).

Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 9:51–24:53, vol. 2, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996), 1204-1207. ↩
“Theodicy” refers to the theological discussion of whether God is responsible for evil. ↩
Darrell L. Bock, Luke, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 365–366. ↩

The post Would Jesus Say the Coronavirus is a Deserved Judgment on Wicked People? appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Thoughts on Signs and Wonders: Part 3: Are We Supposed to Be Raising the Dead?

Let me start by saying (to your relief no doubt) that this Part will be shorter than the previous two. It was prompted some time ago, when I read the tragic news that the folks at Bethel Church in Redding were praying for the resurrection of a deceased little girl. Aside from the obvious tragedy of a child dying, the news was pretty disturbing for theological reasons. In this article, the leader of Bethel Church, Bill Johnson, explained why he thought his congregation (and others around the world, presumably) should pray for the resurrection of the dead child:

“Resurrection is at the heart of Jesus’ behavior but it is also in His command to those who follow Him,” the pastor said, referencing Matthew 10:8, where Jesus sends out the 12 apostles and tells them: “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.”

The article notes that, “Although some maintain that those instructions were only for that group of disciples in that age, and not for everyone, Johnson stressed that the Great Commission says otherwise because Jesus told them to teach everything that they had been taught.”

I have several thoughts on this and will (as promised) keep them brief.

The idea of Johnson that Jesus told everyone who received the Great Commission to teach everything they’d been taught is a bit misleading. Here are the statements of the Great Commission from the gospels (Luke and John lack a Great Commission statement):

18 All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matt 28:18-20)

15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. (Mark 16:15)

Mark is very focused — the Great Commission there is to proclaim the gospel. It’s hard to get “teach everyone everything” out of that statement. Consequently, let’s consider Matthew’s statement, which is really the one everyone thinks of when talking about the Great Commission due to its detail.

Notice that Matthew has Jesus telling the 11 disciples (Judas was obviously no longer among them) that they were to teach others to “observe” all that Jesus had commanded them. BDAG notes that this lemma (τηρέω / tēreō) has the semantics of keeping watch, guarding, holding, preserving, keeping, obeying, fulfilling, attending to.1 At this point I have a simple question for Johnson: Where did Jesus teach the disciples to pray that the dead be raised? The answer is that he really didn’t. Rather — as Johnson noted in the article by quoting Matt 10:8 — Jesus commanded the disciples to go out and raise the dead. So, if Johnson really wants to be consistent here, he wouldn’t be telling people to pray that the dead are raised — he’d be telling them that they are under command to raise the dead.

So, should we be out there raising the dead? Matthew 10:8 does say (and the verbs are in the imperative mood) “heal the sick, raise the dead …”

Let’s think about this a bit.

Matthew 10:8 is in fact one of only two places where a verb for “raising” (and there are several) is in the imperative mood in Greek (the mood of command) with “the dead” as its object. If you have Logos Bible Software you can see that for yourself with this search (for the lemma νεκρός [“dead”] when it appears with any of six lemmas for “raising” in the imperative mood (just use right clicks; don’t type all this!):

lemma:νεκρός@J AND lemma:ἀνίστημι@V??M OR lemma:ἐπαίρω@V??M OR lemma:ἐξανίστημι@V??M OR lemma:συνεγείρω@V??M OR lemma:ἐξεγείρω@V??M OR lemma:ἐγείρω@V??M

The other instance is Eph 5:14, where the usage is obviously figurative since the “sleeper” (the person “not awake” to various elements of the spiritual walk):

“Awake, O sleeper,

and arise from the dead,

and Christ will shine on you.”

That leaves Matt 10:8 as the only instance where anyone is commanded to raise the dead.

The audience for this command was, of course, the group of Jesus’ original 12 disciples. I am with those that say this command is to be restricted to the original disciples, the point Johnson objected to. That’s because the context is on my side, not his. As is so often the case with these “debates,” Johnson lifts the phrase out of its context to make his point. Here’s the rest of the passage — please ask yourself if Johnson is obedient to the rest of it, or if there is any mandate that he, or other believers, must do “all” these things. I think the answer is obvious — it’s very clearly framed by the disciples’ ministry:

8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay. 9 Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts, 10 no bag for your journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff, for the laborer deserves his food. 11 And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it and stay there until you depart. 12 As you enter the house, greet it. 13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. 15 Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town. (Matt 10:8-15)

A few highlights …  Per Johnson’s hermeneutic, we (this is for all believers, mind you, since Jesus taught it) are to:

teach / preach (“give”) without being paid; hopefully our needs will be met. No salaries, just faith.
acquire no wealth (people hung bags in which they kept coinage from their sashes / belts)
take no luggage when we travel for teaching and preaching — just take what we’re wearing
shake of the dust from our feet if we aren’t received
stay in peoples’ homes; that means no hotels (they did have inns at the time, you know; they are off limits)

It never ceases to trouble me how Johnson and those whose context is similar will isolate the supernatural stuff (healing, cleansing lepers, casting out demons, raising the dead) and completely forsake all the rest of the points. And we know this is indeed the case.

I think the context is quite clear. These instructions were for the 12 as they went out into Judea. After we get out of the gospels, you see similar things happening (the supernatural elements) and you also see the apostles and others sent out to start and nurture churches (like Paul) doing living this way. Perhaps if we lived that way, too, we might see those other things. Or perhaps we might note how Paul and the writers of other epistles don’t presume that every believer is so supposed to lived this way . . . or that they don’t repeat a lot of these commands in their epistles. Where is the command in the epistles — the inspired material written to churches — to cleanse lepers, heal people, cast out demons, and raise the dead? It isn’t there. Instead, we get selective gifting from the Spirit in these respects. There is a gift of healing, but as Paul plainly says, not all believers have such gifting (or any of the gifts; 1 Cor 12:29-30). Let me note that there is no gift of raising the dead (nor is there one for casting out demons / evil spirits).

Perhaps Johnson would have us believe the New Testament writers failed to teach believers “all” that they were taught. They didn’t pass on commands about raising the dead, healing, casting out demons. I don’t know. If he does I wouldn’t be terribly surprised, but I’d nevertheless find that quite sad. What I do know is that his justification for heightening the personal loss of this family is very poor and biblically uninformed. I also wonder why, if this was really what we were supposed to do, and Johnson and others really believed it, his course of action isn’t taken for every death — at least in the case of every person who dies that attended Bethel? My guess is that this case was especially painful for personal reasons. It’s all the more troubling to think there may be people at Bethel who wondered why the leadership there didn’t recommend praying for the resurrection of their loved one. The whole situation was, and is, tragic.

William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 1002. ↩

The post Thoughts on Signs and Wonders: Part 3: Are We Supposed to Be Raising the Dead? appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Thoughts on Signs and Wonders: Part 2: What’s An Apostle?

The title of this post probably makes it clear that by “signs and wonders” I’m sort of picking off various topics that have something to do with sign gifts. Yes, it’s a bit random in terms of approach, but I’m setting the stage for future blogging. It will make sense down the road.

As to our subject, this may seem like a silly question, but it isn’t. There’s considerable contemporary talk about whether there are modern-day apostles or whether it’s even advisable to use the word. Personally, with respect to the latter question, I don’t think it’s advisable due to the confusion it creates (or could create). Why I say that will become clear in this post. In regard to the former question, we actually could use it today if (a) we had our definitions straight – i.e., aligned with Scripture – and (b) enough people were biblically literate so as to parse accurately what is being claimed and what isn’t. Given the challenge of the first and the unlikelihood of the second, I think it’s best to avoid the term.

Why do I sound so pessimistic? Well, the next time someone calls themselves an apostle, ask what they mean—in particular, ask them which kind of apostle they’re claiming to be.

Yes, you read that correctly. There’s more than one kind of apostle in the New Testament.

A simple search of the Greek lemma translated “apostle” (ἀπόστολος / apostolos) is a good place to start. If you do that, some things will become clear – and some things will start to rock your world. You’ll discover that there’s variety as to what the term means in context. Let’s take a look at the data.

The original 12

This is the easy category. Several passages provide us a list of the 12 disciples of Jesus and attribute the word “apostle” to them: Matt 10:2; Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13. The 12 are referenced as ”apostles” outside the gospels, too (Rev 21:14).

The group is unique in that these 12 were called directly by Jesus, traveled with him, and were taught directly by him. They were set apart from others who might have followed Jesus around, listening to him, by virtue of their calling, and by virtue of the fact they were explicitly referred to as “the twelve”—and there was no ambiguity as to who “the twelve” were (e.g., Matt 26:20; Mark 3:16; 6:7; 11:11; 14:17; Luke 22:3; John 6:67).

When the number fell from 12 to 11 because of Judas’ betrayal and death, the original disciples / apostles felt compelled to restore the number to 12 (Acts 1:15-26). This is likely due to the parallelism with the 12 tribes (cf. Rev 21:12, 14). The criteria for inclusion in the 12 are worth noting. According to Acts 1:21-22, candidates: (a) had accompanied the other 11 since the time of Jesus’ baptism, and (b) had been a witness to the resurrected Christ before his ascension.

Clearly, no one calling themselves an apostle today or claiming an apostolic ministry today fits this description.

At least one role of the original 12 is also of interest due to its uniqueness. The original 12 apostles ministered in the original Jerusalem church, which was Jewish in ethnic orientation. The incident involving Paul and Barnabas (the “Jerusalem Council”) shows that they held authority over the ministry of Paul and Barnabas outside Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 6, 22-23). The original 12 were considered the keepers of right doctrine. Questions had arisen in the wake of Peter’s vision and ministry to the Gentile, Cornelius (Acts 10) and Paul’s ministry to Gentiles thereafter. Part of the rationale for their doctrinal oversight derived from the fact that they had been eyewitnesses and first-person hearers of what Jesus taught. Again, without those credentials, this role would not be expected–there would be no reason to presume that authority.

After the Jerusalem council, Paul went on to start many churches whose congregations were mixed (inclusive of Jew and Gentile). There is no hint that the original 12 had any sort of ruling authority over those churches. Even Paul couldn’t actually claim that, as he appointed leaders in those churches. For sure if doctrinal problems arose, Paul would take steps to correct that (and Paul’s own authority for having that status had been validated by the original 12 at the Jerusalem council).

Consequently, there is little merit to the idea that someone could claim “apostle status” today and wield authority over other churches. The question would be as follows: If you were not at the level of the original 12, on what basis would you assume their mantle–their authority? I see no coherent, scriptural argument for that. That idea comes with conflating the term “apostle” in other passages with the 12, which (as we will see) the New Testament explicitly refuses to do, and even denies.

The “other apostles” outside the original 12 who had seen the risen Christ

The key passage here is 1 Corinthians 15:1-9

1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

There are several very interesting items in this passage. Some of them might even surprise readers. The wording is curious in places. Let’s take the passage apart by noting the interesting phrases:

First, the risen Christ “appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve” – This makes it sound like Peter was distinct from the 12, or not part of the 12. But we know those notions are incorrect from numerous statements in the New Testament. The statement seems to be a reference to Luke 24:34, where the two men on the road to Emmaus return to Jerusalem after their own encounter with the risen Jesus and proclaim to the eleven apostles [curious in itself since Peter would be among the eleven to whom they were excitedly speaking]: “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” They then proceed to tell of their encounter.1 Keeping in mind Judas was absent, the wording “appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” seems incongruous. Shouldn’t the wording have been “”appeared to Cephas, then to the ELEVEN” (even including Peter)? In my view, the likely reference of the wording in 1 Cor 15:5 is that Paul refers to the relative order of things: the risen Jesus appeared to Peter, and then later to the REST of the apostles. I think “the twelve” here is meant to restrict the wording to “the original apostles.” The number “12” telegraphs that.

Per the discussion above, we have a discrete group of apostles corresponding to the original disciples (the Eleven, Peter inclusive). But now look at what follows: Jesus appeared to “more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.” Here we have a group of “apostles” who are NOT the original 12 — and neither is Paul included in their number, for Paul distinguishes himself in the next line: “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”

Paul’s wording raises a question: was he including himself in with “all the apostles” or did he view himself as a lesser apostle — but still an apostle — with respect to those other apostles? So do we now have two groups or three? In order to consider this, we need to consider some other passages, such as 1 Cor 9:5:

5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?

Paul here makes it clear (again) that there were the original 12 apostles and apostles who were not the original 12. The “brothers of the Lord” (plural) line is interesting, because of what Paul writes in Gal 1:19: “But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” This means that James, one of the biological brothers of Jesus, was considered an apostle — but he was not one of the original 12, nor would he have met the criteria of Acts 1:21-22 for filling Judas’ vacancy, for he had not “accompanied the other 11 since the time of Jesus’ baptism.” Taking this to 1 Cor 15:5, it would seem that Jesus’ other brothers (or maybe just James and Jude) were called apostles. So there is a clear second group by virtue of this association. Joining the Lord’s brothers in this second group were “all the apostles” mentioned in 1 Cor 15:7. It also seems to me these passages reinforce the idea this second group was connected to the Jerusalem church.

But did Paul consider himself (and others who ministered with him) a third group with lesser status? That is possible. The inclusion of James (who was not one of the original 12) with these other apostles suggests (but does not prove) that this second group had spent time with Jesus prior to the crucifixion and resurrection. James’ inclusion, as well as the chronology of Acts, also suggests that these other apostles were headquartered in Jerusalem. Paul had not spent time with Jesus before the cross, nor was his ministry part of the Jerusalem church. He was an outsider, being called to preach to the Gentiles. Paul also puts himself down (is it merely self-deprecating rhetoric?) as the “least of the apostles” in his wording. Lastly, as we will see in a moment, Paul refers to other ministry partners — including Gentiles — as apostles.

Given the data, my thought is that what we have here is three groups, but the two groups outside the 12 were the same in purpose and status. What I mean is that the two groups who were not the 12 did not have the status of the 12, but they mutually had the endorsement of the 12. The original 12 certainly endorsed the ministry of James and other apostles who worked in the church at Jerusalem. And we know from Acts 15 that they (along with James) endorsed the work of Paul to the Gentiles. They considered him an apostle.

Paul’s wording in 1 Cor 9:5-6 also makes it clear that he considered himself — and Barnabas — an apostle. That is, he was placing himself and his partner into the “apostle equation” with respect to marriage and consideration of ministry support. Barnabas is actually referred to as an apostle in Acts 14:4. The text describes how the people at Iconium hearing the gospel either sided with the Jews or “the apostles” — i.e., Paul and Barnabas, who were preaching to them, and who were the objects of the Jews’ opposition. Acts 14:4 makes this identification sure by explicitly calling Barnabas (and Paul) an apostle: “But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd. . . .”

This episode helps us understand why people outside the original 12 and the Jerusalem church could rightly be called apostles. In Acts 13:2-3 Paul and Barnabas had been commissioned and sent by the Holy Spirit to preach to the Gentiles. That calling touched off Paul’s missionary journey, the first of several. Paul and Barnabas were apostles — essentially what we would call missionaries today. “Apostle” is a noun (apostolos) whose related verb form (apostellō) means “to send.”2 The noun apostolos (“apostle”) “refers to persons who are dispatched for a specific purpose. . . .  messengers, envoys.”3 Paul was also accompanied on missionary work by Silas (also known as Silvanus). We see this in 1 Thess 2:6 where Paul, speaking of himself, Timothy, and Silvanus (cf. 1 Thess 1:1) says:  “Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ.” According to the book of Acts, it was Silas who, worked with Paul and Timothy at Thessalonica (Acts 15:40; Acts 17). This is why scholars consider Silas and Silvanus to be names for the same person:

“Silas, Silvanus (sī´luhs, sil-vay«nuhs), generally regarded as alternate names for the same person, a leader in the early church and an associate of Paul. The Letters of Paul and 1 Peter refer to him as Silvanus (a Latinization), but Acts prefers Silas (either a Semitic or a shortened Greek form).”4

False Apostles

This last category is as straightforward as the first. There were those people in the early church who took the label “apostle” but who were false teachers, spreading a different gospel and otherwise leading believers astray (2 Cor 11:5, 13; 12:11).  In 2 Corinthians 11 Paul refers to these individuals as pseudapostolos (pseudo-apostles; i.e., false apostles). He referred to them earlier (sarcastically) as “super apostles” (hyperlian apostolōn). They were pretenders:

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. (2 Co 11:13–14)

Other Thoughts

It is important to note here that, while Paul had encountered the risen Christ, as did other apostles who were not in the original 12, there are no scriptural data that suggest Timothy, Barnabas, or Silas ever encountered the risen Christ. As such, this is clear proof that encountering Jesus did not qualify someone to be an apostle. One could be called an apostle without that event. Why? Because of what these apostles actually were: To use the more familiar term, they were missionaries. They planted churches, taught believers, and exercised leadership and oversight of those churches (not just any churches). Then they repeated the process after appointing leaders in those churches (1 Tim 3, Titus 1). And note that those appointed leaders had different titles than “apostles” — because they weren’t sent anywhere.

The “missionary” meaning of “apostle” would have been true for other “apostles” that are so-called in the New Testament that, we presume, in light of Paul’s familiarity with them and their work: Junia / Julia and Adronicus (Rom 16:7), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25), and others, possibly including Titus (2 Cor 8:23?). Given the terminology, we can presume that this individuals had been sent to either start a church or help a church. As such, they did leadership tasks: teaching, preaching, evangelism, discipleship, etc. That’s what church leaders did and do.

Another realization is that, if an apostle had any authority at all, it was over a church under their immediate care. There is no evidence that apostles could claim authority over churches they had not started, or in which they had not exercised leadership ministry. The only conceivable authority at that level was the original 12, who were (obviously) in the Jerusalem church and whom (also obviously) had higher status as original disciples of Jesus. There is no evidence that others appointed by the original 12 in Jerusalem had authority over churches started by Paul. One cannot appeal to the Jerusalem council for that idea since the original 12 apostles who were still alive were in that church. They had that authority. It is possible James did as well since he was the blood brother of Jesus. What they thought would naturally have carried tremendous authority. But after those individuals — whose status was unique due to knowing the pre-crucifixion Jesus — everyone else’s authority was of a different nature.

An oft-neglected observation reinforces this “non-authority” idea. The churches in the book of Revelation were not started by the original 12. We aren’t told in Scripture who started those churches. The apostle John was chosen by Jesus to write to those churches, but the authority basis for what he wrote to them was the risen Jesus. Unlike Paul’s language to churches he started, John never asserts any authority over these churches, not does he appeal to Jerusalem’s apostles or anyone else for their governance. The authority is the Lord’s and no one else’s.

Lastly, there’s no sense at all in the New Testament usage of the term that suggests an apostle is someone who merely exercises authoritative oversight — and does little in the way of evangelism, discipleship, teaching, etc. Apostles weren’t executive VPs. They weren’t distant sages that observed the boots on the ground work of ministry from afar. They did the work of the ministry, showing others how to fulfill the Great Commission by example.

These few thoughts are important note in light of modern apostolic claims to regional authority. That idea is absent in the New Testament. One cannot appeal to Ephesians 4 in this regard and, in light of the preceding discussion, it should be clear why:

11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

The text says God’s plan was to give the fledgling church “apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers.” That he did. He gave the original Jerusalem church apostles. He called Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles. Others apostles (missionaries – we’re talking about planting churches here in Gentile territory) were commissioned (sent) to help Paul (Barnabas, Silas, etc.).

Here’s my point: it’s one thing for believers today to use the term “apostle” from this passage when they mean missionaries who plant churches or who planted their church. They have rightful authority in those places. But it is quite another to lift this term from Eph 4:11 and claim authority over churches in a city, county, state, or larger region. Every office in Eph 4:11ff. can (and did) function on a local church level. There is no warrant to read anything else into the passage. Paul began the chapter addressing the Ephesian believers (“you”; Eph 4:1). We have no warrant to say Paul started referring to the universal church at v. 11 and beyond, as though Jesus was appointing regional or worldwide apostles over collective groups of local churches. Ephesians 4 has each local church in view and its own leadership. It is not focused on appointing a small, elite group for exercising authority over many churches. And it certainly doesn’t suggest apostolic succession (as though “apostles” outside the 12 inherit the office from the 12). It’s incoherent to presume that everything else in the epistle that Paul wants readers to believe first had a religious oligarchy in mind and then, secondarily, individual local churches. Ephesians 4:11-16 is written to a local church and is for local churches everywhere as local churches. 

So, when you meet someone whose title is “apostle” you might ask them what they mean. If they are leaders in a local church they started or with whom they were sent to labor, the title isn’t unwarranted. That said, in our day and age the title can cause confusion due to misunderstanding or abuse. We need therefore need to be cautious with its use.

 

 

Bock notes that this passage has drawn attention because of John 20. He writes, “Upon arriving in Jerusalem, they find the Eleven gathered together (ἀθροίζω, athroizō). . . . The reference to the Eleven, a collective term for the remaining apostles, raises the issue of Luke’s relationship to John 20:19–29. If all Eleven were at the gathering noted by Luke, then why was Thomas not convinced until a week later (John 20:24–29)? John implies that Thomas is not at the first gathering. The now-exposed Judas is absent for reasons that Acts 1:15–26 will make clear.” Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 9:51–24:53 (vol. 2; Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996), 1921. ↩
William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (=BDAG; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 120. ↩
BDAG, 122. ↩
 Paul J. Achtemeier, Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 951. ↩

The post Thoughts on Signs and Wonders: Part 2: What’s An Apostle? appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Mike’s New Commentary on the Book of Enoch is Now Shipping

Subscribers to my newsletter know that I have been working on the first of a planned three-volume Reader’s Commentary on the Book of Enoch. That first volume is now shipping on Amazon:

A Companion to the Book of Enoch: A Reader’s Commentary, Vol I: The Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36) [image error]

What’s a “Reader’s Commentary”? It’s probably easier to describe what it isn’t. It’s not a comment-on-every-word (or even every verse) commentary, though it is an academic work. It’s not a commentary that requires readers to know Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Ethiopic, though I interact with the ancient languages in which the book of Enoch has survived. Rather, if you can imagine sitting down with me and reading the book of Enoch together, where I comment on words, phrases, and content themes, then you get the idea. A Reader’s Commentary is designed to help someone reading a book know what they’re reading — it’s a “What’s going on and what does it mean?” tool.

There are two highly-technical commentaries on the book of Enoch. An old, turn-of-the-century volume by R. H. Charles, which is peppered with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Ethiopic, for it presumes users can handle those languages, and the more recent massive 2-volume set by Nickelsburg, which is even more technical than Charles. Until my Reader’s Commentary, nothing exists for the layperson interested in studying 1 Enoch. Here’s what I wrote for the Amazon page:

Though the scholarly literature on 1 Enoch is plentiful, no commentary for the interested lay person exists–until now. A Companion to the Book of Enoch: A Reader’s Commentary, Volume 1: The Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36) was written to fill this void and help students of the Bible understand and appreciate this important and influential ancient book. This reader’s commentary; does not require original language facility on the part of its user. Rather, the purpose of a Reader’s Commentary is to help readers of 1 Enoch comprehend what the book’s content with greater insight and clarity. Consequently, this Reader’s Commentary on 1 Enoch is not written for scholars.

By way of example, here’s the commentary on 1 Enoch 1:1-2 and 1 Enoch 1:9 from the book. I hope many of you will get this new, unique resource!

1 Enoch 1:1-2 – Translation

11 The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect «and» righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked «and godless» are to be removed. 2 And he took up his parable and said—Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, ‹which› the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come.

Commentary

1:1

­The words of the blessing of Enoch – This opening line is similar to Deut 33:1 (“This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the people of Israel before his death), prompting some scholars to suggest a deliberate imitation. The writer’s motive would be to make 1 Enoch read as Scripture. This suspicion is likely confirmed once we note that “the words of,” while not appearing in Deut 33:1, appear in the first verse of other canonical books of the Hebrew Bible (Neh 1:1; Eccl 1:1; Jer 1:1; Amos 1:1). The content of the book is characterized as a blessing because the book will describe the glorious fate of the righteous and terrible fate of the wicked.

the elect «and» righteous – other translations read “righteous chosen” (N) and “righteous elect” (B). This is no surprise given the double brackets around “and” indicating the conjunction isn’t in all manuscripts. Consequently, it is certain that two separate groups are not in view. Charles’ own commentary on the 1 Enoch notes that the phrase is found elsewhere in 1 Enoch (38:2, 3, 4, 39:6, 7, 48:1, 58:1, 2, 60:13, 63:12, 13, 15, 70:3). Since 1 Enoch is a Second Temple Jewish text, the “elect” has Old Testament Israel as a reference point. The elect are righteous (faithful) Jews.

in the day of tribulation – A time of great judgment. The referent is clarified by the ensuing “when all the wicked «and godless» are to be removed.” This tribulation, then, is not a general time of judgment on Jews. Rather, those judged are the enemies of the righteous and God, regardless of ethnicity. As 1 Enoch precedes the advent of Christianity, there is no sense of Christians escaping judgment at the expense of Jews. The passage is therefore no support for a particular view of Christian eschatology. Rather than a tribulation period of popular eschatology, the ensuing description of the tribulation (vv. 4-9) bears close resemblance to the Old Testament Day of the Lord.

Nickelsburg adds “and the righteous will be saved” to the end of 1:1 after “when all the wicked «and godless» are to be removed.” While the phrase is not found in Ethiopic here, it is found in the parallel verse of 1 En 10:17.

1:2

his parable – (See also v. 3). N has “his discourse,” perhaps to avoid a connotation of allegory. The Greek reads parabolē, which can be reconciled with the Aramaic fragment of the verse (4QEna 1 1:2) where the noun is matlâh. This Aramaic noun is cognate to Hebrew mashal, which is to be understood as a wise proverbial saying, not an allegory. In the Septuagint, parabolē is the predominant translation of mashal. Silva writes that mashal “. . . simply denotes a proverb, which may often contain a comparison (1 Sam 10:12; 24:13; Ezek 18:2); if the saying or comparison makes fun of or disparages a person as a bad example, the term takes on the sense “taunt” (Isa 14:4; Hab 2:6).” Parables are fundamentally about comparison. The means of the comparison (allegory or not) can vary.

Enoch – Enoch is here referred to in the third person, making it clear that the biblical Enoch of Gen 5:21-24 is not cast as the author of 1 Enoch. Rather, an unknown writer purports to quote the biblical Enoch, and so 1 Enoch is about Enoch, not authored by Enoch.

NOTES:

Robert Henry Charles, ed., Commentary on the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (vol. 2; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 188.

A survey of the judgment phrases in 1 Enoch informs us that “day of judgment” is more common than “day of tribulation. See Daniel Assefa, Matthew’s Day of Judgment in the Light of 1 Enoch,” in Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels: Reminiscences, Allusions, Intertextuality (ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boccaccini; Early Judaism and Its Literature 44; SBL Press, 2016), 199-213 (esp. 204).

Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 609.

 

1 Enoch 1:9 – Translation

9 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of ‹His› holy ones

To execute judgement upon all,

And to destroy ‹all› the ungodly:

And to convict all flesh

Of all the works ‹of their ungodliness› which they have ungodly committed,

‹And of all the hard things which› ungodly sinners ‹have spoken› against Him.

Commentary 

This verse is quoted in Jude 14-15, almost in its entirety, as a prophecy from “the seventh from Adam” (Enoch). Though the Enochic source of the statement is clear from observing the Greek of Jude and 1 Enoch 1:9, the Enochic writer may have also been influenced by two other Old Testament passages:

Jer 25:30-31

“‘The Lord will roar from on high,

and from his holy habitation utter his voice;

he will roar mightily against his fold,

and shout, like those who tread grapes,

against all the inhabitants of the earth.

The clamor will resound to the ends of the earth,

for the Lord has an indictment against the nations;

he is entering into judgment with all flesh,

and the wicked he will put to the sword,

declares the Lord.’

Isaiah 66:15-16

“For behold, the Lord will come in fire,

and his chariots like the whirlwind,

to render his anger in fury,

and his rebuke with flames of fire.

For by fire will the Lord enter into judgment,

and by his sword, with all flesh;

and those slain by the Lord shall be many.

ten thousands of ‹His› holy ones . . . to execute judgement – The descriptive phrase “holy ones” is “a common Enochic term for heavenly beings, which appears in the absolute form and in combination with ‘watchers’.” The statement brings to mind passages like Deut 33:1-2 and Dan 7:10 (cp. Dan 7:18, 22, 25) and 1 Enoch 14:22-23, where multitudes of holy ones are present with God to dispense the law (Deut 33:1-2) or render judgment.

NOTES:

Ibid., 149. Nickelsburg notes that Jude “quotes all but line c.” Bauckham adds that “the seventh from Adam” is “a traditional description of Enoch (1 Enoch 60:8; 93:3 = 4QEng 1:3:23–24; Jub. 7:39; Lev. Rab. 29:11), arrived at by reckoning the generations inclusively (Gen. 5:3–19).” Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude (vol. 50; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 96. The reader will note from Bauckham’s citation that we have Aramaic evidence for this quotation. Bauckham (p. 94) raises the obvious questions: “Has Jude followed the Greek version (C) or made his own translation from the Aramaic? . . . Has Jude adapted the text to meet his own requirements?” See the discussion on pp. 94-95 of Bauckham’s commentary.

Ibid., 149. Examples listed by Nickelsburg include: 9:3 (Eth); 14:23, 25; 47:2, 4; 57:2; 60:4; 61:10, 12; 69:13; 71:4; 81:5; 93:11.

For Old Testament examples of the heavenly host coming with or at the behest of Yahweh for judgment, see Heiser, Angels, 52-54. For New Testament examples, see the same resource at pp. 136-138.

The post Mike’s New Commentary on the Book of Enoch is Now Shipping appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Thoughts on Signs and Wonders: Part 1: Deuteronomy 13:1-5

A short time ago I blogged about my ministry going forward and mentioned Deuteronomy 13. More specifically, I wrote about how, due to the nature of what I often write about (the supernatural worldview of the Bible), there was potential for my work to be cherry-picked out of context to prop up beliefs and practices I neither hold nor endorse. I want to spend some time on Deuteronomy 13 to kick off an informal series of posts about signs and wonders. As I noted in that recent post, I’m neither a traditional cessationist nor a charismatic. My view is today characterized as “cautiously open” in academic parlance, a view that basically contends that God can do supernatural things today, including bestowing supernatural gifting, when it suits him. A corollary thought is that, in doing so, God would never be behind such a thing if it was inconsistent with the patterns and purposes we see discerned in the record of God’s giftings — i.e., the Bible. Claims of supernatural gifting, then, need to conform to Scripture in terms of their purpose, their fruit, and any truth claims attached to them. With that introduction, let’s take a look at this neglected passage.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 (ESV)

1 “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

The passage is straightforward. The term translated “prophet” (nāḇîʾ / נָבִיא) is the normative and frequent Hebrew word used of Yahweh’s prophets. One cannot therefore contend that we have in view some idiosyncratic practitioner. “Dreamer of dreams” (ḥolēm ḥalôm / חֹלֵ֣ם חֲל֑וֹם) is less frequent, but the lemmas used are still common. They occur individually or in some combination of people with whom God did indeed communicate, such as: Joseph (“this dreamer”; Gen 37:19 – literally, “master of dreams”: baʿal haḥalomôt / בַּ֛עַל הַחֲלֹמ֥וֹת), Pharaoh (Gen 20:6); and Jacob (Gen 28:12). The point is that, in other passages, prophets or dream recipients do in fact receive their messages and sign abilities from Yahweh.

Prophets of Yahweh of course performed signs and wonders, or knew of some future event that would come to pass. Examples are numerous. One needs only to read of Moses and the signs and wonders called down in both judgment on the Egyptians and for the benefit of Israelites. Interestingly, Moses is called a prophet in the same book of Deuteronomy (Deut 18:15). This connection suggests that the warning of Deuteronomy 13 might have an individual in view who sought leadership or authority over God’s people. That notion is strengthened by noting the crime for which that individual is condemned: performing a sign or wonder, or dispensing a “word” of revelation that indeed comes to pass, but which was contrary to the worship and commands of Yahweh:

1 If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. . . .

Yahweh was thus NOT the source of the sign or revelation despite the fact that both were real. Consequently, the problem wasn’t the genuineness of the sign or revelation. Instead, the problem was the prophet or dreamer, for along with the sign and revelatory word came false teaching: “Let us go after other gods . . . and let us serve them.” In other words, the issue was doctrine. 

That this is the case is confirmed elsewhere in the chapter. The nature of the problematic “let us go after other gods” Yahweh tells his people to reject is discerned by noting what Yahweh wanted affirmed: “You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice” (Deut 13:4). Israel was not to “leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded [them] to walk” (Deut 13:5).

The context for these “commandments”, “obeying God’s voice”, and “walking in the way” is, not surprisingly, the revelation at Sinai. In Deuteronomy the scene of the giving of the Law is found in Deuteronomy 5. That more than the Ten Commandments is in view is seen by taking note of Deut 5:28-33, verses that follow the enumeration of the Ten Commandments:

28 “And the LORD heard your words, when you spoke to me. And the LORD said to me, ‘I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you. They are right in all that they have spoken. 29 Oh that they had such a heart as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever! 30 Go and say to them, “Return to your tents.” 31 But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you the whole commandment and the statutes and the rules that you shall teach them, that they may do them in the land that I am giving them to possess.’ 32 You shall be careful therefore to do as the LORD your God has commanded you. You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. 33 You shall walk in all the way that the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you shall possess.

The language here is obviously (and intentionally) drawn upon in Deut 13:4-5. In a nutshell, if the wonder-working prophet or dreamer of dreams married the sign or revelation with anything contrary to what God had commanded for Israel, he or she was to be rejected and … worse … put to death (Deut 13:5).

This last part that ought to get the attention of modern-day prophets and revelation-dispensers — and those who listen to them. In my experience, a lot of Bible students know Deut 18:22 (cp. Jer 23:23-32), where we are told that if a prophet (same word: nāḇîʾ) predicts something that doesn’t come to pass, he or she is to be rejected as a true prophet of Yahweh:

22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

But (also in my experience) it seems that few who know this verse are familiar with Deut 13:1-5 and its “reverse” circumstances. I think the passage ought to make churches very cautious about listening to “prophecies” from people. Are churches prepared to obey Deut 13:1-5?

Obviously, we aren’t in a theocracy (by God’s own design, mind you), and so the death penalty for people who perform a sign or “speak a word” to a church or believers and who wind up using the success or accuracy of that deed to lead people astray isn’t on the table. But what is the right course of action is evident from the epistles: false teachers should be exposed so that believers and churches know to avoid them (2 Pet 2:1-3). Paul quite clearly said there was such a thing as “false apostles” (2 Cor 11:13) who taught people error instead of truth.

Before wrapping this short foray into Deuteronomy up, I want to return to something I said earlier — that Deut 13’s warning seems connected to the legitimate God-ordained authority of Moses. Deuteronomy 13 sets up a situation where the power of Yahweh (signs, dream revelation) could be mimed as part of an effort to get Israelites to depart from the truth of Yahweh and follow other gods — to follow someone other than the one God had validated. This is an important contextual factor that we must keep in mind.

Perhaps a somewhat hypothetical illustration will be helpful. I have had several people at various points of my life tell me they had a “word” for me. Invariably, the “word” was so vague that it would take some real analysis to discern if it ever came to pass. It may have, but I can’t be sure since it was so imprecise. I don’t think that these people were what Deut 13 was talking about. I’m willing to entertain a darker thought here, but I tend to file what they did and said in the “kind word” bucket. I think they were trying to be an encouragement and blessing. That said, if these “prophets” had been correct and then used that to leverage their influence with me to prompt me to embrace something contrary to Scripture, I’d say they’d deserve exposure and condemnation. Notice I said “contrary to Scripture” — not only because of what we read in Deut 13, but also because we don’t follow leaders above Scripture. While it’s true that God gifted men and women in both New Testament days and thereafter to lead (read: serve) the Church in specific capacities, those officers are repeatedly judged in the New Testament by their alignment and allegiance to the teachings of Scripture — not the gift-title they bear. It’s the authority issue that, I think, must factor into how we think about Deuteronomy 13. We all need to realize that our authority is Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17). In that sense, churches ought to be prepared to obey Deuteronomy 13 if a sign or wonder or “word” comes to pass but brings false teaching with it. We ought not be so impressed by a sign or revelation that we become less impressed with the Word of God.

 

 

The post Thoughts on Signs and Wonders: Part 1: Deuteronomy 13:1-5 appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

COME AND SEE Audio Re-Enactments of the Gospels: Special Discount to Naked Bible Podcast Listeners

Some time ago I blogged about COME AND SEE, audio re-creations of the story of Jesus where the dialogue comes completely from the gospels. The production quality is quite compelling.

The series creator, Boyd Barrett, is a friend of mine and follower of the Naked Bible Podcast. For a limited time, listeners to the Naked Bible Podcast can take advantage of a 25% discount by entering the discount code MIKE. Listeners can stream the files on the site or download them straight to a podcast platform like Apple Podcasts to listen offline.

The post COME AND SEE Audio Re-Enactments of the Gospels: Special Discount to Naked Bible Podcast Listeners appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Addendum to Peter Gentry on the Nephilim

I’m tempted to just tell readers to ignore my original post on Peter Gentry’s thoughts on the Nephilim, because it seems I have misunderstood Peter’s trajectory. But I have nevertheless let it remain on the blog (accompanied by what follows) since it might be applicable to someone out there.

After the original post, Peter wrote to me that I had misunderstood his point. He wrote:

I am not at all uncomfortable with the idea that the Nephilim might well be the offspring of angels and human women. Nor do I argue for my view because the Nephilim are not mentioned in 2 Peter or Jude. So you misrepresent my exegetical method. My interpretation is based solely on syntactic details in Genesis 6:1-4. You do not respond to the syntactic evidence I provide. It is fully possible that the Nephilim were heroes like Gilgamesh who where quasi-divine. So I have no qualms about such an idea if that is what the text really means. I hope you will acknowledge misrepresenting me in your blog.

Yes, Peter, I acknowledge that!  The oversight is mine. I’m glad you pointed me in the right direction to understand your thinking. As I said in the original post, I love your work in general and want everyone to read it. So let me say a few words about the point you raise here in the correspondence.

I don’t see anything amiss with your analysis of the possibilities based on syntax. It’s just that only one of the options that are possible actually is consistent with respect to other contexts and considerations. In your book you wrote:

Two main possibilities exist for interpretation of the temporal expressions. If one interprets “those times” to be the times described in verses 1–3, then what is distinguished are the times before the flood from the times after the flood. The relative clause introduced by “afterwards” would seem to indicate that the cohabitation of angelic and human beings continued after the flood. One might conclude that the Nephilim were the product of such unions (cf. Num. 13:22, 28, 33).

Yet a different interpretation is possible. The expression “afterwards” (’aḥărê-kēn) usually occurs in the second of two verbal sentences: the first sentence says that event X did or will happen; the second says that subsequent to the event in the first sentence, event Y did or will happen. Here we must note that the expression ’aḥărê-kēn is modified by a relative sentence which refers specifically to the event in verse 2. Therefore one could assume that “those days” means before the cohabitation of divine and human beings. Verse 4 would then comment that the Nephilim were in the earth before the business of angelic and human beings cohabiting and also afterwards and therefore had nothing to do with these unions.

This latter interpretation is strengthened by considerations of discourse grammar. Verse 4 consists of two clauses or sentences, the first verbal, the second nominal. Both are marked by asyndeton (i.e., no conjunction or connector at the beginning of the clause/sentence). In the first, the verb is non-initial. This pattern marks a commentary or explanatory digression. The fact that the first sentence is subject-initial indicates a new topic. The relative sentence in verse 4 correlates this new topic with the events of verse 2. The nominal sentence is a further comment on the Nephilim. They were the heroes from the distant past. This may mean the distant past with reference to the writer, or it may indicate a period long past in reference to the event of 6:2. Therefore the writer would be demythologizing the Nephilim. These heroes of ancient times were there before and after the events of 6:2 and were not necessarily related to them at all. Thus, verse 1 describes an increase in female humans, verse 2 describes a cohabitation of angelic and human beings, verse 3 concludes that the result is still human and therefore under God’s judgement, and verse 4 states that all this has nothing to do with the well-known Nephilim. Since the word Nephilim is not otherwise explained, they must have been well known to the ancient (first) readers of this text.

What this digression shows, then, is that if one assumes that Genesis 6:1–4 is referring to a union of angelic and human beings, this may not be connected to the causes of the flood. In addition, according to 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, the judgement of the angels was separate from the judgement of the flood.

“May mean” (my emphasis) is appropriately cautious. I don’t find the second possibility persuasive for the following reasons:

I don’t see 2 Peter and Jude 6 making an attempt to separate the judgment of the angels from the flood. I see no way to establish this in the Greek text of the relevant passages. There is no other supernatural group rebellion associated with Noah in the OT. If you’re trying to distance a supernatural rebellion from Noah and the flood, why bring them up in the same passage? Since the nephilim are not specifically mentioned by Peter and Jude, my mistaken impression was that you were using their absence as an argument. If you weren’t doing that at all, I misunderstood. If that’s a sub-argument you’d use, it’s still a flawed one for the reasons pointed out in the original post. But that doesn’t seem to be in the picture based on your correspondence, so we can set that aside. (Glad to hear what you said in your email, too).
The second discourse option reading fails to cohere with the apkallu tradition from Mesopotamia, which Annus and others have conclusively demonstrated is the backdrop for Gen 6:1-4.  The DSS show a clear awareness of that tradition (book of Giants / Gilgamesh). It’s very hard to imagine how a point-for-point correspondence between the apkallu material and Gen 6:1-4 as well as a coherent polemic reason for their juxtaposition with Gen 6:5 can be found in the apkallu traditions is nothing more than a coincidence. I don’t believe that for a moment. Disconnecting (chronologically, based on syntax) the nephilim element from the sons of God element is completely inconsistent with the target of the biblical writer’s polemic — the “pro-Babylonian” theology extending from the apkallu story.
Most (all?) Second Temple Jewish texts don’t separate the nephilim from the sons of God / Watchers incident (i.e., they don’t follow the second discourse trajectory). Peter and Jude are obviously aware of that material and re-purposing it here (“chains of gloomy darkness” comes right out of that material). I doubt very much if Second Temple writers misread the text, especially as a collective.
Peter and Jude are also aware of, and utilize, the Titan material (“sent to Tartarus”) which also doesn’t really follow this second trajectory.
I don’t see how the distancing option works with Num 13:32-33, which links the Anakim (who are referred to as Rephaim elsewhere) to the Rephaim. The Anakim Rephaim are obviously the referents of Amos 2:9-10. In other words, unusual individuals are part of other conquest accounts that ultimately trace those inhabitants back to the Nephilim.
It would seem the phrase “in those days” could orient the Nephilim at precisely the time when the sons of God went into the daughters of men AND another period — i.e., perhaps there is merit to the temporal / continuative intepretation I noted in Unseen Realm. As I noted in the book, the relative clause Peter mentions may also be understood temporally. This doesn’t make Peter’s second trajectory impossible, but I include this here to point out that the second trajectory isn’t certain. From Unseen Realm:

A translation of “when” takes the ʾasher clause as temporal. According to Westermann, this is the view espoused by most commentators. He is, however, apathetic as to whether a temporal understanding or another possibility is more coherent: “It does not really matter whether אשׁר is understood as temporal (with most interpreters) or iterative (so E. König, W. H. Schmidt and others) or as causal (e.g., B. S. Childs; against, and correctly, W. H. Schmidt); אשׁר is an afterthought, its function being in fact only to link and so to subordinate” (Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 377). Wenham notes that some Hebrew scholars consider the use of the Hebrew imperfect in this clause to allow for repetition: “ ‘Whenever the sons of the gods went into the daughters of men, they bore them children.’ Though it is not impossible to translate this as a simple past event—‘When they went in …’—it is more natural (with Skinner, König, Gispen) to take the imperfect ‘went’ and perfect preceded by waw (‘bore … children’) as frequentative. To ‘go in to’ is a frequent euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf. Gen 30:16; 38:16)” (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary 1 (Dallas: Word, 1998], 143. See also Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd English ed. (ed. E. Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), 315 (sec. 107e). Gesenius includes Gen 6:4 as an instance of this interpretive nuance.

Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (First Edition.; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 189, note 16.

I would add here that, since the ʾasher clause can be temporal, the unusual insertion of ’aḥărê-kēn may actually have been intended to clarify the sequence: sons of God/cohabitation then nephilim. But we can’t be sure of that — but it would be consistent with all the above.

Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 150–151.

My thanks to Peter for chiming in and correcting me!  I just don’t see much coherence in the second trajectory. Though it’s possible from the syntax, the syntax doesn’t compel it — and that option doesn’t account for these other contextual items.

 

The post Addendum to Peter Gentry on the Nephilim appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.

Mike Talks Finding the Gospel in Stranger Things on the Key Life Network Show with Steve Brown

This was a fun recent interview. You can listen via this link or click on the YouTube video below!

The post Mike Talks Finding the Gospel in Stranger Things on the Key Life Network Show with Steve Brown appeared first on Dr. Michael Heiser.