More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
The term literally means “one of a kind” or “unique” without connotation of created origin.
The distinction helps us see that the original task of humanity was to make the entire Earth like Eden.
It’s a bit misguided when someone attempts to defend biblical literalism by appealing to the evolutionary history of snakes.
The human yearning for utopia is interesting in this light. We seem to have an inner sense of need to restore something that was lost, but Eden cannot return on purely human terms.
After the fall, the only way to extend the work of God’s human council-family was childbirth. Eve was redeemed through childbearing (1 Tim 2:15). So were the rest of us, in the sense that that is the only way God’s original plan remained viable. Where there are no offspring, there can be no human imaging and no kingdom.
Deuteronomy 4:19–20 is the other side of God’s punitive coin. Whereas in Deuteronomy 32:8–9 God apportioned or handed out the nations to the sons of God, here we are told God “allotted” the gods to those nations. God decreed, in the wake of Babel, that the other nations he had forsaken would have other gods besides himself to worship. It is as though God was saying, “If you don’t want to obey me, I’m not interested in being your god—I’ll match you up with some other god.”
While the decision was harsh, the other nations are not completely forsaken. Yahweh disinherited the nations, and in the very next chapter of Genesis, he calls Abram out of—you guessed it—Mesopotamia. Again, this is not accidental. Yahweh would take a man from the heart of the rebellion and make a new nation, Israel. But in his covenant with Abram, God said that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through Abram, through his descendants (Gen 12:1–3).
Paul quite clearly alludes to the situation with the nations produced by God’s judgment at Babel, the Deuteronomy 32:8–9 worldview. God had disinherited the nations as his people and made a new people for himself, Israel, his own “portion” (Deut 32:9). Immediately after the judgment at Babel (Gen 11:1–9), God called Abraham for that purpose, initiating a covenant relationship with Abraham and his yet unborn descendants. That covenant relationship included the idea Paul refers to in Acts 17:27, the drawing of the disinherited Gentile nations (Gen 12:3). Paul’s rationale for his own ministry to
...more
The startling reality is that long before Jesus and the New Testament, careful readers of the Old Testament would not have been troubled by the notion of, essentially, two Yahwehs—one invisible and in heaven, the other manifest on earth in a variety of visible forms, including that of a man. In some instances the two Yahweh figures are found together in the same scene. In this and the chapter that follows, we’ll see that the “Word” was just one expression of a visible Yahweh in human form.
Pharaoh was the son of Re. Israel was explicitly called the son of Yahweh in the confrontation with Pharaoh (Exod 4:23; cf. Hos 11:1). Yahweh and his son would defeat the high god of Egypt and his son. God against god, son against son, imager against imager. In that context, the plagues are spiritual warfare. Yahweh will undo the cosmic order, throwing the land into chaos.
which is his footstool (Job 9:8; Psa 104:2). As Eden was the place where humanity experienced the presence of God, so too was the tabernacle. This was particularly true for the priests, but God’s presence occasionally met Israel’s leaders outside the holy of holies (Lev 9:23; Num 12:5–19; 20:6; Deut 31:15), the most obvious instance being the glory cloud (Exod 40:34–35). The menorah (“lampstand”) in the tabernacle is a striking analogy with the tree of life in Eden.13 The lampstand was fashioned in the appearance of a tree (Exod 25:31–36) and was stationed directly outside the holy of holies.
...more
The point of the goat for Azazel was not that something was owed to the demonic realm, as though a ransom was being paid.21 The goat for Azazel banished the sins of the Israelites to the realm outside Israel. Why? Because the ground on which Yahweh had his dwelling was holy. Sin had to be “transported” to where evil belonged—the territory outside Israel, under the control of gods set over the pagan nations. The high priest was not sacrificing to Azazel. Rather, Azazel was getting what belonged to him: sin.
“Only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod” did some of the Anakim remain. Why add that note? Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod were Philistine cities. One needs only to recall Goliath of Gath and his brothers to understand that the writer of Joshua is setting the stage for the fact that annihilation of these bloodlines would continue into David’s era.
The point is that the rationale for kherem annihilation was the specific elimination of the descendants of the Nephilim. Ridding the land of these bloodlines was the motivation.
In point of fact, the conquest narratives utilize other verbs besides kharam that are not necessarily words for taking life.14 This indicates that kherem was not the goal of every engagement. The picture that emerges when all the descriptions are woven together was that, when Israelite soldiers encountered a member of the giant clans or others known to be descended from those clans, they were under kherem. Others might be killed in warfare, but their lives were not required by the supernatural-theological orientation that is telegraphed in Num 13:26–33, Deut 2–3, and Josh 11:21–23.
Eden cannot come and survive without Yahweh’s constant presence—as had been the case in the original Eden. The kingdom of God cannot be built with human hands.
The heavenly tent prototype was the heavens themselves, as Isaiah 40:22 tells us (“He is the one who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; the one who stretches out the heavens like a veil and spreads them out like a tent to live in”). In other words, the heavens and earth were conceived of as Yahweh’s true tabernacle or temple.
description would be a familiar one to Israel’s pagan neighbors, particularly at Ugarit. It’s actually taken out of their literature. The “heights of the north” (Ugaritic: “the heights of tsaphon”) is the place where Baal lived and, supposedly, ran the cosmos at the behest of the high god El and the divine council.13 The psalmist is stealing glory from Baal, restoring it to the One to whom it rightfully belongs—Yahweh. It’s a theological and literary slap in the face, another polemic. This explains why the description sounds odd in terms of Jerusalem’s actual geography. This is why Isaiah and
...more
In Israel’s theology, Eden, the tabernacle, Sinai, and the temple were equally the abode of Yahweh and his council. The Israelites who had the tabernacle and the temple were constantly reminded of the fact that they had the God of the cosmic mountain and the cosmic garden living in their midst, and if they obeyed him, Zion would become the kingdom domain of Yahweh, which would serve as the place to which he would regather the disinherited nations cast aside at Babel to himself. Micah 4 puts it well: 1 It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be
...more
The Rephaim of the Transjordan in the days of Moses were associated not only with Bashan but also Ashtaroth and Edrei, two cities that, in the literature of Ugarit, were considered as marking the gateway to the underworld. In David’s time, the Rephaim were also associated with death in a more peripheral, but conceptually similar, way.
There are nearly ten references in the Old Testament to a place known as the Valley of the Rephaim. On several occasions the Philistines are described as camped there (2 Sam 5:18, 22; 23:13).15 Joshua 15:8 and 18:16 tell us that the Valley of the Rephaim adjoined another valley—the Valley of Hinnom, also known as the Valley of the Son of Hinnom.16 In Hebrew “Valley of Hinnom” is ge hinnom, a phrase from which the name gehenna derives.
The history of the Valley of Hinnom no doubt was part of the reason for this conception. The translated meaning of ge hinnom in Hebrew is most likely “valley of wailing,” an understandable description given the child sacrifice that took place there. The Valley of Hinnom was the place where King Ahaz and King Manasseh sacrificed their own sons as burnt offerings to Molech (2 Chr 28:3; 33:6). These sacrifices took place at ritual centers called topheth (“burning place”), and later the Valley of Hinnom became referred to by the place name Tophet (Jer 7:32; 19:6). The meaning and identity of
...more
The divine warrior of the exodus and wars against the Anakim had been cast aside for—ironically—the tallest person on the Israelite side (1 Sam 9:2). “Make us a king like the other nations!” God gave them what they asked for, and they paid the price.
Jeroboam, Israel’s first rebel king, made a rebuilt Shechem his first capital city (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem had been the place where Joshua had gathered Israel before his death to dedicate the nation to finishing the conquest and remaining pure before Yahweh (Josh 24). Jeroboam set up cult centers (1 Kgs 12:26–33) for Baal worship in two places to mark the extent of his realm: Dan (which was in the region of Bashan, close to Mount Hermon) and Bethel (the place where Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs).19 The symbolism of spiritual warfare in these decisions was palpable. No one faithful to
...more
In Job 15:7–8 (ESV), Eliphaz, one of Job’s friends, asks Job some intriguing questions: “Are you the first man who was born? Or were you brought forth before the hills? Have you listened in the council of God? And do you limit wisdom to yourself?” The questions are obviously rhetorical. By using contrast, they each anticipate an answer of no. Of course Job was not the first man—Adam was. Job had not listened in the council of God (Hebrew: sod eloah), but the rhetorical contrast implies that Adam had listened in the council of God.
The pattern that emerges from the patriarchal sagas is that when God chooses someone to represent him, that person must first meet with God. By necessity, that meeting is with the visible Yahweh, who can be discerned by human senses. In many cases, the divine job interview occurs in a place that is described as God’s home or headquarters, the place where the divine council meets.
The implications are clear: true prophets have stood and listened in Yahweh’s divine council; false prophets have not.
By God’s design, the Scripture presents the messiah in terms of a mosaic profile that can only be discerned after the pieces are assembled. Paul tells us why in 1 Corinthians 2:6–8. If the plan of God for the messiah’s mission had been clear, the powers of darkness would never have killed Jesus—they would have known that his death and resurrection were the key to reclaiming the nations forever.
obscure the big picture. This sheds light on certain episodes in the New Testament, such as why Peter couldn’t grasp the notion of Jesus going up to Jerusalem to die. Peter believed Jesus was the messiah (the word for “anointed one” in Greek is christos, “christ”). When Jesus announced he was going to die in Jerusalem, Peter didn’t say, “I know—I read that in my Bible.” He couldn’t read it in his Bible because there was no single verse for the idea. Rather, the concept of a dying and rising messiah must be pieced together from a scattering of disparate fragments in the Old Testament that, each
...more
Even after the resurrection the disciples had to have their minds supernaturally opened to see a suffering messiah. The risen Jesus says that explicitly in Luke 24: 44 “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything that is written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.
First, Mark’s note that the heavens were “split apart” is significant. The Greek lemma is schizo. Mark’s choice of the term in connection with the water baptism of Jesus has drawn the attention of scholars because of the use of schizo in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by Jesus and the apostles. Not coincidentally, schizo is the verb used in Exodus 14:21 to describe the miraculous parting of the sea.12 Think back to our discussion of the exodus event.13 The deliverance from Egypt was a victory over hostile gods. In Exodus 15:11 Moses asked the rhetorical
...more
Second, Mark 1:11 has God’s voice from heaven pronouncing, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”15 We tend to think of this declaration as a sentimental one, or perhaps some verbal token of affection. It is far more than that. When God refers to Jesus as his “beloved” he is affirming the kingship of Jesus—his legitimate status as the heir to David’s throne. The key term is “beloved.” Scholars have noticed that the term was used of Solomon, the original heir to David’s throne. It’s difficult to discern that in English translation, though, since the Hebrew term gets translated as
...more
But why would the Spirit compel Jesus to go into the desert to face the devil? The answer takes us back to the previous chapter and the Gospels’ presentation of Jesus’ baptism and revival of God’s kingdom as a new exodus event. In the Old Testament, Israel, the son of God (Exod 4:23), passed through the sea (Exod 14–15) and then ventured out into the wilderness on the way to Canaan to re-establish Yahweh’s kingdom. But Israel’s faith and loyalty to Yahweh faltered (Judg 2:11–15). They were eventually seduced by the hostile divine powers (“demons”) whose domain was the wilderness (Deut
...more
Jesus sent out seventy disciples. The number is not accidental.8 Seventy is the number of nations listed in Genesis 10 that were dispossessed at Babel. The seventy “return with joy” (Luke 10:17) and announce to Jesus, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” Jesus’ response is telling: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (10:18). The implications are clear: Jesus’ ministry is the beginning of the end for Satan and the gods of the nations. The great reversal is underway.
The theological messaging couldn’t be more dramatic. Jesus says he will build his church—and the “gates of hell” will not prevail against it. We often think of this phrase as though God’s people are in a posture of having to bravely fend off Satan and his demons. This simply isn’t correct. Gates are defensive structures, not offensive weapons. The kingdom of God is the aggressor.16 Jesus begins at ground zero in the cosmic geography of both testaments to announce the great reversal. It is the gates of hell that are under assault—and they will not hold up against the Church. Hell will one day
...more
Amos could be targeting temple priestesses who served the gods along with male priests. It is also quite possible that the cows of Bashan are the deities themselves in the form of the idols. This possibility is strengthened by noticing their crimes: “oppressing the poor [dallim]” and “crushing the needy [ebyonim].” These same two Hebrew words are used in Psalm 82, where the corrupt elohim are accused of exactly these same crimes (Psa 82:3–4).3
Why did he believe that his life and ministry would not be over until he got there? Because he knew Isaiah 66:15–23. The passage has a number of correlations with the events of Pentecost, not only with respect to Acts 2 but other passages as well. (Recall that in the last chapter, we saw how Psalm 68, including the conquest of Bashan, was quoted by Paul in Ephesians 4 about the victory of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost.) I’ve listed those correlations in the table below and inserted footnotes to guide our reading.
The two boldfaced words need reconsideration in light of the divine council worldview. The word most often translated “appeal” (eperōtēma) in verse 21 is best understood as “pledge” here, a meaning that it has elsewhere.4 Likewise the word “conscience” (suneidēsis) does not refer to the inner voice of right and wrong in this text. Rather, the word refers to the disposition of one’s loyalties, a usage that is also found in other contexts and Greek literature.5 Baptism, then, is not what produces salvation. It “saves” in that it reflects a heart decision: a pledge of loyalty to the risen Savior.
...more
Paul often used the word “flesh” (sarkos) to refer to the physical body, but he sometimes used it to refer to the self-deception of trusting in our own works to merit God’s favor, or an ungodly manner of life.13 Since there is no indication that someone expelled from the church was going to die immediately as a result, this second usage makes the most sense in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul is insisting that the unrepentant person be dismissed from the church to live in his or her sin and endure the consequences of the behavior. Since salvation was not based in any way on human merit, the erring
...more
But what about “handed over to Satan”? Recall that the Israelites viewed their land as holy ground and the territory of the non-Israelite nations as controlled by demonic gods. Israel was holy ground because that was where the presence of Yahweh resided. The opposite was true everywhere else. In the last chapter, we saw that gatherings of believers were viewed the same way. God’s presence was no longer in the Jerusalem temple, but in the temple which is the body of Christ (1 Cor 3:16–17). The Corinthian church was therefore “holy ground”; outside that gathering was the demonic realm. To be
...more
It is no surprise that zbl baʿal becomes Baal Zebul (Beelzebul) and Baal Zebub, titles associated with Satan in later Jewish literature and the New Testament.
The battle of Gog and Magog would be something expected after the initiation of Yahweh’s plan to reclaim the nations and, therefore, draw his children, Jew or Gentile, from those nations. The Gog invasion would be the response of supernatural evil against the messiah and his kingdom. This is in fact precisely how it is portrayed in Revelation 20:7–10.11 Gog would have been perceived as either a figure empowered by supernatural evil or an evil quasi-divine figure from the supernatural world bent on the destruction of God’s people.12 For this reason, Gog is regarded by many biblical scholars as
...more
The antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan, located in Bashan.14 The heart of the idea emerges from Genesis 49, part of the messianic mosaic. The right to rule Israel is linked to the tribe of Judah, and the one who holds its scepter is a “lion” (Gen 49:9–10). In contrast (Gen 49:17), Dan is referred to as a serpent, fitting imagery for Bashan, who “judges” his own people. Deuteronomy 33:22 picks up the theme: “Dan is a cub of a lion; he leaps from Bashan.” Dan is an upstart inferior, who will attack from Bashan. Dan is thus an “internal outsider,” an enemy of Yahweh’s people. Those who
...more
