In part 1 (0-21:00), Tim points out that the laws are not a “law code” but terms of a covenant relationship. The laws are not a “constitutional code” (i.e. a divine behavior manual) dropped from heaven. Rather, they illustrate the official terms of the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the people of ancient Israel. The 613 laws all fall within the ceremony of God’s covenant with Israel in Exodus 19-24. Tim asks the question: If these laws aren’t a judicial code, then what are they? The laws are the shared agreement between God and Israel that was put forth in their covenant ceremony. We witness this relationship between Israel and Yahweh, Tim shares, as outsiders. People today were not at Mt. Sinai when the covenant was ratified. Instead, the law is used as “torah” for us, or “instruction,” meaning they reveal more about ourselves and God and the human condition. The Torah, Tim says, is a narrative about a covenant relationship, not a law code. He points out that there would have inevitably been more rules and laws governing ancient Israel than the 613 laws included in the Bible. In part 2 (21:00-26:00), Tim expresses how the law served as “relational authority” between Israel and God. The laws served as a witness to Israel’s difference from other kingdoms, that they were a “kingdom of priests” who all had a relationship with God. Ancient Law: Examples from History In part 3, (26:00-41:30) Tim explains that to best understand the ancient laws of Israel, one should also understand how other ancient laws worked. Tim brings up the Code of Hammurabi, the most well known ancient law code. Tim shares the start of the law code of Hammurabi: “When lofty Anum, king of the Anunnaki and Enlil, lord of heaven and earth, the determiner of the destinies of the land, determined for Marduk, the first-born of Enki, 6 the Enlil supreme powers over all mankind, made him great among the Igigi, called Babylon by its exalted name, He made it supreme in the world, established for him in its midst an enduring kingship, whose foundations are as firm as heaven and earth— “at that time Anum and Enlil named me to promote the welfare of the people, me, Hammurabi, the devout, god-fearing prince, to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, that the strong might not oppress the weak, to rise like the sun over humankind, and to light up the land. “Hammurabi, the shepherd, called by Enlil, am I; the one who makes affluence and plenty abound; the one who relaid the foundations of Sippar; who decked with green the chapels of Aya; the designer of the temple of Ebabbar, which is like a heavenly dwelling. “When the god Marduk commanded me to provide just ways for the people of the land (in order to attain) appropriate behavior, I established truth and justice as the declaration of the land, I enhanced the well-being of the people.” The Epilogue and Prologue to the Law Code [From Martha Tobi Roth, Harry A. Hoffner, and Piotr Michalowski, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor] Here are a few laws in the code of Hammurabi: #196: "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one gold mina. If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price." #250 (xliv 44–51) “If an ox gores to death a man while it is passing through the streets, that case has no basis for a claim.” #251 (xliv 52–65) “If a man’s ox is a known gorer, and the authorities of his city quarter notify him that it is a known gorer, but he does not blunt(?) its horns or control his ox, and that ox gores to death a member of the awīlu-class, he (the owner) shall give 30 shekels of silver.” Here is the epilogue of the law: “May any king who will appear in the land in the future, at any time, observe the pronouncements of justice that I inscribed upon my stela. May he not alter the judgments that I rendered and the verdicts that I gave, nor remove my engraved image. If that man has discernment, and is capable of providing just ways for his land, may he heed the pronouncements I have inscribed upon my stela.” The Epilogue and Prologue to the Law Code [From Martha Tobi Roth, Harry A. Hoffner, and Piotr Michalowski, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor] Tim brings up some interesting observations, puzzles and problems that ancient laws present. This code is one of the most frequently copied texts from the ancient world, copies ranging over 1500yrs, and yet, as he quotes: “Of the many thousands of Mesopotamian legal documents in our possession, not one of them cites the Code of Hammurabi, or any other ‘code’ as a source of authority. This in spite of the fact that the code of Hammurabi was esteemed and recopied for more than a millennium. All of this suggests that ancient near eastern law codes were of a literary, educational, and monumental nature, rather than legal and juridical.” (Joshua Berman, Created Equal: 84) The code of Hammurabi was copied and recopied for over a thousand years. But across the centuries, none of the dozens of monetary fines were changed (which they would have if consulted and used for legal purposes). The code is nowhere near comprehensive—you won’t find any laws concerning inheritances, one of the most important features of landed-agricultural life in Babylon. Copies of the Code of Hammurabi have been found in royal archives but never in the sites of local courts, and never with caches of legal documents (receipts, divorce certificates, etc.). Additionally, there are no ancient legal texts that ever cite or even refer to the Code as a source of law. In the thousands of ancient legal texts that do exist and address the same topics as the code, they are usually at odds with the sentences and fines given within it. So, if these compositions were not legal codes, (1) where could the law of the land be found? And if they were not legal codes, (2) what was their purpose? Tim shares this quote: “Archaeologists have unearthed thousands of law-practice documents from the ancient near East, documents such as land transfers, financial contracts, and court rulings where law was applied to actual situations (divorces, civil disputes). There have also been discovered dozens of ancient law codes (Hammurabi, Ur-Namma, Lipit-Ishtar, Eshnunna). A curious problem emerges when these practice documents are compared with the law collections. The law as practiced in those cultures often differed from, even contradicted, the laws as stated in the collections. Penalties found in court decisions are repeatedly inconsistent with the penalties inscribed in the collections. Prices established in contracts don’t match those given in the law codes. This has raised important questions about the purpose of these collections. Whatever their purposes were, they do not appear to have dictated actual legal practice. Scholars have come to see that these law codes as academic and monumental collections, but not the source of law in these societies.” (Michael Lefebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah, 1) Two Kinds of Law In part 4, (41:30-49:30) Tim explains that the ancient world would have been known as a common or customary law society, whereas our modern world is largely known as a statutory law society. He shares more quotes: “The scholarly consensus is that law in Mesopotamia was customary/common law. A judge would determine the law at the moment of adjudication by drawing on an extensive reservoir of custom, accepted norms, and principles from the legal texts with which he was educated. The law would vary from place to place, and neither the Code of Hammurabi nor any other text was ‘the final word’ on what law should be applied. Indeed, the association of “law” with a written collection of statutes and rules is a modern anachronistic imposition from our own culture. It is no surprise, therefore, that neither Mesopotamia, Egyptian, or Hittite culture has any word for ‘written law,’ that we find in later Greek as thesmos, or nomos.” (Joshua Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah, 112-113) “The law collections, instead, are anthologies of judgments from times past, snapshots of decisions and customs rendered by judges or even by a king. The collections were a model of justice meant to educate and inspire…. They were records of precedent, but not of legislation….they instilled in later generations of scribes a unified legal vision.” (Ibid.) Tim says this has helped him understand three main purposes of the law: Judicial Education texts: Collections of the most common representative decisions from a culture, compiled to train the moral-instincts of leaders, not to legislate actual practice. Monumental Propaganda: Like the Code of Hammurabi, the code praises the king’s wisdom and justice and claims that his decisions are in fact divinely inspired. Educational texts: These are compilations for training the scribal class, introducing them to a literary tradition of justice. 
 In part 5 (49:30-63:00), Tim further delineates the differences between common law and statutory law: Statutory Law The law itself is contained in a codified text, whose authority combines two elements: (a) the law emanates from a sovereign (a king or legislative body, etc.), (b) the law is a finite and complete legal system, so that only what is written in the code is the law. The law code supersedes all other sources of law that precede the formulation of the code. Where the code lacks explicit legislation, judges must adjudicate with the code as their primary guide. Common Law With common law, the law is not found in a written code that serves as a judge’s point of reference or limits what they can decide. Rather, the judges make decisions based on the mores and spirit of the community and its customs. Law develops through the distillation and continual restatement of legal doctrine through the decision of courts. Previous legal decisions are consulted but not binding, and importantly, a judge’s decision does not create a binding law, because no particular formulation of the law is binding. The common law is consciously and inherently incomplete, fluid, and vague. Under common law, legal codes are not the source of law, but rather a resource for later judges to consult. Tim shares a helpful metaphor from Sir Matthew Hale (“the greatest British common-law judge of the 17th century”): The common law can change and yet still be considered part of the same legal “system” just as a ship can return home after a long voyage and still be considered the “same” ship, even though it returns with many repairs, new materials, and old materials discarded and replaced. In the same saw, law collections create a system of legal reasoning that a judge accesses to apply in new and unanticipated circumstances. A Helpful Illustration from History Common law traditions flourished for most of human history, because they require a homogeneous community where a common story and common values are assumed and perpetuated by all members of a society. 19th century German legal theorist Carl von Savigny called this the Volksgeist, “the collective spirit and conscience of a people.” Where social cohesion breaks down, it becomes more difficult to anchor the law in a collective set of values, and this is what happened in 19th century Europe with the rise of immigration, urbanization, and the modern nation-state. Nineteenth-century Germany faced transition from a historically tribal state into a modern state (Otto von Bismarck and Carl Savigny continued to advocate the common law tradition of their past). One of his most famous students was Jacob Grimm (1785-1863), best known for his collaboration with his brother Wilhelm. These brothers did exhaustive research into their cultural folklore and produced comprehensive editions of Germany’s moral heritage in their anthology called “Kinder und Hausmarchen” = “Children’s and Household Tales” (2 volumes in 1812 and 1815), including the classic tales of Cinderella, Hansel and Gretel, Rapunzel, Rumpelstiltskin, Sleeping Beauty, and the Frog Prince. The Brothers Grimm established a methodology for collecting and recording folk stories that became the basis for folklore studies. Between the first edition of 1812-15 and the seventh and final edition of 1857, they revised their collection many times so that it grew from 156 stories to more than 200. In addition to collecting and editing folk tales, the brothers compiled German legends. Individually, they published a large body of linguistic and literary scholarship. Together in 1838, they began work on a massive historical German dictionary (Deutsches Wörterbuch), which, in their lifetimes, they completed only as far as the word Frucht, 'fruit'. Tim points out that the Grimm brothers bridged the gap between folklore and common law in German society into a society of more statutory law in Germany. In many ways, Tim says, this is how Israel came to treat the law. The stories surrounding the laws allowed Israel to illustrate what happens when the rules are or are not followed. Examples of Law Implementation in Scripture In part 6 (63:00-end), Tim points out that many times in the Bible, the actual implementation of the laws are totally different from the given or written laws. There are many cases where narratives about legal decisions either differ from the statements of practice in the biblical law codes, or the decision is offered without any recourse to a law code. For example, in 2 Samuel 14, David gives a ruling contrary to every law and principle in the biblical law codes concerning murder. David simply excuses his son Absalom (who murdered Amnon) with no appeal or defense of his actions and no mention of a law code. Another example is found in Jeremiah 26, the most detailed description of a trial in the Old Testament. Jeremiah is accused of treason for announcing the temple’s destruction. His defense is that another prophet before him, Micah, announced the same message and he was never imprisoned. This is an argument from precedent, not from a law code. The arguments advanced against him are offered on theological grounds (“he speaks in the name of Yahweh”) and political grounds (“he prophesied against our city”). No law codes are ever consulted to defend or accuse him. A third example is Solomon’s famous “decision” about the two women in 1 Kings 3. Solomon listens to the witnesses (the two women), and uses his intuition (which is divinely inspired according to the previous narrative) to make a decision. The concluding statement shows the real source of legal authority: “When all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had decided, they revered the king, for they saw the wisdom of God in him to do justice.” (1 Kings 3:28) Here is a helpful quote to understand why the implementation may have been different. “The Hebrew Bible strongly suggests that the earliest forms of disputes… were resolved… by intuitions of justice against a background of custom, rather than appeal to formulated rules. The biblical sources which talk about the establishment of the judicial system in Israel give no indication that judges were to use written sources. Rather, judges are urged to avoid partiality and corruption and to ‘do justice.’ But what was the source of such justice? The version attributed to king Jehoshaphat is the most explicit, ‘God is with you in giving judgment’ (2 Chronicles 19:6). Divine inspiration is also attributed to the king in rendering judgment: Proverbs 16:10, ‘Inspired decisions are on the lips of a king; his mouth does not sin in judgment.’ Solomon’s judgment (1 Kings 3:16-28) is presented as an example of just such a process…. This is not to say that judges were expected to go into some kind of trance or function as an oracle. Rather, they were called to operate by combining local custom with divinely guided intuitions of justice…relying on the ‘practical wisdom’ that existed within the social consciousness of the people as a whole.” (Bernard Jackson, Wisdom Laws, 30-31) Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Music: “Defender Inst.” by Tents “Shot in the back of the head” by Moby Synth Groove “Scream Pilots” by Moby “Shine” by Moby Third Floor 
 Show Resources: Joshua Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah Bernard Jackson, Wisdom Laws Martha Tobi Roth, Harry A. Hoffner, and Piotr Michalowski, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor Michael Lefebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah
 Thank you to all our supporters!

Welcome to our first episode looking at laws in the Bible! In part 1 (0-4:00), Tim explains how this set of conversations will be different than the previous podcast episodes that looked at biblical law (the first two episodes of this podcast). In parts 2 and 3 (4:00-17:45 and 17:45-35:00), Tim and Jon discuss ancient law vs. modern law. They talk about the importance of biblical law, but how these laws often cause hang-ups for modern readers. Tim notes that for centuries, interpreting biblical law has been a major point of debate among Christians, Jews, and everyone else. In part 4 (35:00-end), Tim explains a debate over the number of laws in the Old Testament Torah. Some say there are 611 commands; others say 613. So which is it? This is one small but significant example that illustrates how important interpreting the law was in Israel. Here’s a glimpse into the debate to give you a fuller picture. A few centuries after Jesus, rabbis still firmly held to both views. The main disagreement came down to two passages where a commandment could be implicitly read. Consider: Exodus 20:1, “I am Yahweh your God” = Believe that Yahweh exists. Deuteronomy 6:5, “Yahweh your God, Yahweh is one” = Believe that Yahweh is one. Yet even though the number of laws in the Torah can be debated, early rabbis recognized the ability to “reduce” many laws to just a handful that fully captured the spirit of the law. A famous passage illustrates this in the Babylonian Talmud (one of the primary sources for interpreting Jewish religious law and theology). It states: Six hundred and thirteen commandments were given to Moses. David reduced those commandments to eleven. (Psalm 15) Isaiah reduced them to six. (Isaiah 33:15-16) Micah the prophet reduced them to three. (Micah 6:8) Isaiah again reduced them to two. (Isaiah 56:1) Amos reduced them to one. (Amos 5:4) Habakkuk further reduces to say, “But the righteous shall live by his faith.” (Habakkuk 2:4) Throughout the episode, Tim highlights differences in the law. For example, Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 (both presenting the Ten Commandments) talk about the Sabbath in slightly different ways. Or consider another instance, where Moses gives two different commands about how to prepare the Passover. Should you roast it or boil it? According to Exodus 12:8-9, you should roast it and not boil it. But in Deuteronomy 16:6-7, Moses tells the people to boil it. These problems we see in the law are more than just ancient interpretation. To modern readers, some of the laws seem noble and inspiring, while others seem odd, primitive, or even barbaric. We encounter all three of these examples in two adjacent chapters in the Torah: In Leviticus 19, we read about God’s command to leave the extra gleanings of the harvest for the needy and stranger. God shows his care for the least of these. A few verses later, we find laws about tattoos and beard etiquette. Weird! One chapter later, we read the command that “a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:27) Now these laws leave us feeling a tension around how to understand the idea of “biblical authority.” What does obedience to the laws of the Torah mean? Do we obey all of them, some of them, or none of them? This issue has caused many conflicts in both Jewish and Christian history. For example, what is a Jew supposed to do about sacrificial ritual laws when the temple is destroyed in 586 B.C.? Or for a follower of Jesus, how do these laws relate to us as the messianic new covenant family? We see that Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17) So what can Paul mean when he says, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4) Yet Paul still quotes from the Ten Commandments in places like Ephesians 6:1-3. Overall, Tim makes the case that the law presented to us in the Old Testament is not a “code” in the same way modern readers often think of a law code. Instead, we see how Moses, the prophets, Paul, and even Jesus handled the laws. Each held a deep respect for the underlying meaning and ideals presented by the law to the people of God. Though times and customs changed, God’s law served as a bedrock of guiding ideals to help the people of God (both then and now) live in such a way as to love God and love neighbor. Thank you to all our supporters! Visit our website: thebibleproject.com Show Produced by: Dan Gummel Show Music: Defender Instrumental: Tents Pilgrim Instrumental Roads by LiQWYD Skydive Loxbeats Show Resources: Jacob Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, vol. 17a (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 120–122.

Welcome to Episode 2 in our series on How to Read the Prophets. In the introduction, Tim says that the books of the prophets can be set up in different ways, but in most cases they are anthologies. These are the greatest hits or most important points of the prophets. There are five parts to this episode where Tim outlines several buckets or themes that are important to understand when reading the prophets. (6:00-25:00) Introduction (25:00-33:00) Bucket 1: Accusations (33:00-37:00) Bucket 2: Repentance (37:00-52:00) Bucket 3: Day of the Lord Announcements (52:00-end) Conclusion Biblical prophecy frequently deals with the following themes: Accusations that Israel and the nations have rebelled against Yahweh. Israel/Judah has (1) broken the covenant, (2) worshiped other gods, (3) allowed social injustice, and (4) made alliances with the foreign nations. The covenant lawsuit is the key rhetorical device. And the key metaphor is idolatry as adultery. So the nations are accused of injustice, cruelty, and arrogance. A second bucket or theme is the calls for repentance and admonition to turn from wicked ways and return to faithful obedience to Yahweh. The prophets call for religious devotion to Yahweh alone and no other gods. They also call for social justice and care for the most vulnerable (widow, orphan, immigrant). The third theme is the announcements of the Day of the Lord that will address injustice and rebellion. This refers to historical events that God will use to judge evil and vindicate the righteous, all leading up to the great future day when God will do this for all creation—a cosmic “house-cleaning.” The bad news the prophets deliver is that Yahweh will bring his justice against human rebellion. Because of human hard-heartedness, future punishment becomes inevitable. The punishment will be upon Israel and Judah, resulting in disaster, defeat, and exile upon individual nations (especially Assyrian, Babylon, Egypt) and upon all nations. The good news is that Yahweh will bring about the restoration of his covenant people on the other side of exile. This is a hope for a righteous remnant. The prophets say that God will preserve a faithful remnant, an important minority who remain faithful. There is hope for restoration from exile (captivity), and God will restore their “fortunes.” Finally, there is hope for a new covenant. Yahweh will renew his covenant with his people. The prophets say that the Kingdom of God will appear and Yahweh will establish his peaceful, universal Kingdom over all nations, ruled by the future messianic King. They use the imagery of a new temple, new Eden, and new Jerusalem to represent God’s personal presence that will permeate his people in a new cosmic temple. Helpful tips: How to Read the Prophets Look at the first sentence of the book to see when the prophet lived, then go read the corresponding section of 1-2 Kings to get the context of the prophet’s day. Pay attention to the three main themes and how they connect to the book’s design. Some prophets put all their poems of accusation together (as in Ezekiel 3-24), while others weave poems of accusation and of future hope together (see Isaiah 1-2). These books are mostly poetry, so read slowly and thoughtfully. They use tons of metaphors, so pay attention to repeated words and images. Isaiah uses metaphors from the plant world more than any other prophet (vines, trees, branches, stumps, flowers, grass) and often in creative ways to make different points (See Isaiah 11). Key Insights from the prophets: God loves justice. Israel had been called to a higher level of justice than the nations around them, especially in the treatment of their land and the poor (See Isaiah 1:10-20). God gets angry at evil. The prophets give a lot of space to God’s exposure of evil among Israel and the nations. It’s intense, but it reveals how much God cares about the goodness of his world (see Hosea 13). God has hope for our world. He refuses to let Israel’s sin get the last word, and so all the prophetic books contain profound images of future hope and restoration for God’s people and for the entire world (see Isaiah 11:1-9). Show Produced by: Dan Gummel Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Moonlight Sonata, Beethoven Look, KV Ocean, KV Saturdays, Lakey Inspired Yesterday on Repeat, Vexento Resources: Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Prophets by J. Gordon McConville The Prophets by Abraham Heschel The NIV Compact Bible Commentary by John Sailhamer Read the Bible for a Change by Ray Lubeck

The books of the prophets are often the most difficult and misunderstood books in the Bible. In part one (0:00-10:00), Tim and Jon briefly go over a few reasons why reading the prophets can be so challenging. Tim shares quotes from Martin Luther and fJohn Bright: The challenge of reading the prophetic books: “The prophets have an odd way of talking, like people who, instead of proceeding in an orderly manner, ramble off from one thing to the next, so that you cannot make head or tail of them or see what they are getting at.” Martin Luther, quoted in Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 33. “What makes the prophetic books particularly, and one might say needlessly, difficult is the very manner of their arrangement — or, to be more accurate, their apparent lack of arrangement… All seems confusion… The impression that the reader gains is one of extreme disarray; one can scarcely blame him for concluding that he is reading a hopeless hodgepodge thrown together without any discernible principle of arrangement at all.” — John Bright, Jeremiah (Anchor Bible Commentary, 1965), p. lvi. In part two (10:00-18:40), Tim asks Jon what he thinks a modern definition of prophets and prophecy is. Jon says he believes it has to do with fortune telling. A prophet is someone who can look into the future and predict an event. Tim explains that while this is part of the role of a prophet, it is not the central focus, and predicting future events only occurs occasionally in the Bible. Tim explains that the definition of a prophet in the Old Testament is actually very simple. A prophet is simply a messenger or a herald giving a message to people on God’s behalf. Tim says that most people understand the term prophecy as the prediction of future events. This definition is inadequate and does not account for the huge amounts of the material in the prophetic books. While there are certain passages within the prophets which do contain predictive elements, most of these poems and narratives don’t present themselves as predictive prophecy. In the Bible, a prophecy is a message that God speaks to his people through a human prophet. So prophecies often contain the quoted speech of God himself. Jeremiah 2:1-2: Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord: “I remember concerning you the devotion of your youth…” In part three (18:40-33:30), Tim outlines the character of Moses. Moses is portrayed as the archetypal prophet. He’s the first divine spokesmen sent to Israel and the nations (Exodus 3). He’s the first figure to mediate between Yahweh and Israel and establish his covenant with the people (Exodus 19-24, the Sinai narrative). He’s the only figure allowed to enter the divine presence directly (Exodus 19-20, 33-34). He’s the key intercessor for Israel when they have violated the covenant (Exodus 32-34). He suffers because of Israel’s failures (Numbers 11-21) and accuses them of present and ongoing rebellion against Yahweh that will result in exile (Deuteronomy 28-32). And his death is marked as the end of an era. “Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face…” (Deuteronomy 34:10). Tim says that Moses fails as a prophet. But in the Pentateuch, he is cast as the ideal prophet, someone whom all other Jewish prophets should follow after. In part four (33:30-end), Tim says the prophets are best understood as “covenant watchdogs.” They assume the larger covenant story of Yahweh, creation, and Israel. Yahweh is the creator and King, and his image-bearing stewards have rebelled and corrupted his good world (Genesis 1–11). In the covenant he makes with Abraham, Yahweh says he will use Abraham’s family to restore his divine blessing to all nations (Genesis 12). In the covenant with Israel (the Sinai or Mosaic covenant), Israel is called to become a kingdom of priests to the nations by adhering to the laws of the covenant. Obedience will result in covenant blessing, and rebellion will bring covenant curses (Exod 19, Lev 26, Deut 28–30). In the covenant with Israel’s priesthood, Yahweh promises to provide a perpetual priesthood through the line of Aaron to intercede on Israel’s behalf and atone for their covenant failures (Numbers 25). The covenant with Israel’s monarchy states that Yahweh will raise up a king from the line of David who will bring God’s Kingdom and blessing to all the nations (2 Samuel 7, Psalms 2, 72, 89, 132). Israel was unable to fulfill its side of the Sinai covenant and was sent into exile. But in the new covenant, Yahweh will transform their hearts so they can truly love and obey their God (Deuteronomy 30, Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 36). Thank you to all of our supporters! Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Music Defender Instrumental, Tents Mind Your Time, Me.So Morning, LiQwyd Erhrling, Typhoon Show Resources: Martin Luther, quoted in Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 33. John Bright, Jeremiah (Anchor Bible Commentary, 1965), p. Lvi. Our Video on How to Read the Prophets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edcqUu_BtN0

Prolific theologian N.T. Wright discusses Paul's views on spiritual powers, exploring their role in corrupting creation and the awaited triumph of the Messiah. The hosts delve into the impact of Epicureanism on Western culture, contrasting it with the spiritual worldview of the Bible. They also discuss human authority, societal transformation through faith, power dynamics in communities, and the origins of spiritual evil as anti-creation.

In part 1, (0-11:40) Tim notes the ways that Luke has mapped the story of Paul on top of the story of Jesus. He quotes from Charles Talbert. “In Luke-Acts we find an architectural pattern of correspondences between the career of Jesus and the life of the apostles. In this way, Luke portrays the deeds and teachings of Jesus as the pattern for the acts and instruction of the apostolic church in the book of Acts. It is near impossible to avoid the conclusion that these correspondences between Jesus and his followers serve this purpose: Jesus is the master and the source of the Christian way of life that is imitated by his disciples.” — Charles Talbert, Literary Patterns and Theological Themes in Luke-Acts. Tim points out several interesting symbolic ways that Luke and Acts are similar. For example, when Jesus and Paul initially go to Jerusalem. They are both greeted warmly, and they both immediately go to the temple. Both Jesus and Paul stand before someone named Herod. In both cases a Roman centurion is given a positive portrait. In part 2 (11:40-21:30) Jon asks why would Luke be so interested in comparing Paul and Jesus together? Tim says that the parallelism isn’t meant to lessen Christ’s status, but instead to show that Christ’s work is continuing in regular humans who are now being grafted in, being created new as a new humanity following in Christ’s example and life. Tim shares a quote from scholar Michael Goulder: “Luke is writing a typological history, the life of Jesus providing the template for the life of the church. It is the Pauline doctrine of the body of Christ which is finding here a literary expression in the patterns and cycles of Luke’s narrative. Christ is alive and continuing his own life through his body, that is, his church.” — Michael Goulder, Type and History in Acts, 61-62. In part 3, (21:30-end) The guys discuss how the book of acts concludes. To many modern readers it is an abrupt ending. Tim shares a scholar Ben Witherington: “The ending of the book of Acts makes it clear that Luke’s purpose wasn’t simply to chronicle not the life and death of Paul, but rather the rise and spread of the gospel and of the social and religious movement to which it gave birth. Luke has provided a theological history that traces the spread of the good news from Jerusalem to Rome, from the eastern edge of the Roman Empire into its very heart. Rome was not seen in Luke’s day as the edge of the known world, and so the reader would know very well that Jesus’ mission to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8) was still ongoing in his own day. However, for Luke it was critical and symbolic that the message reach the heart and hub of the Empire, as a challenge to Caesar and a gateway into to the ends of the earth. The open-endedness that the modern reader senses in the ending of Acts is intentional. Luke is chronicling not the life and times of Paul (or any other early Christian leader), which would have a definite conclusion, but rather a phenomenon and movement that was continuing and alive and well in his own day. For Luke, Paul’s story is really… about the unstoppable word of god, which no obstacle, no shipwreck, no snake-bite, and no Roman authorities could hinder from reaching the heart of the empire and the hearts of those who lived there. -- Adapted from Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 809. Thank you to all our supporters! Show produced by: Dan Gummel Show Resources: Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 809. Michael Goulder, Type and History in Acts Charles Talbert, Literary Patterns and Theological Themes in Luke-Acts. Show Music: Defender Instrumental: Tents Where Peace and Rest Are Found Polaroid: Extenz

In part one (0:00-13:30), Tim and Jon discuss the motives Paul had for putting himself in harm's way. Tim says that Paul's priority was to show a unified world between Jew and Gentile through belief in Jesus. Tim then outlines Paul's time in Jerusalem and his arrest. Tim points out that there are six cycles that begin with Paul being arrested, then Paul is given a platform to speak, then the authority figure saying that Paul doesn't deserve death, but he is never released. Tim says Luke is portraying Paul as a model for how Christians should relate to the powers and cultural structures of the world. Christianity is not a movement that is political, or social, or anything else, but it does encompass those things. It is an entirely different movement of an entirely different nature. In part two (13:30-30:00), Tim continues to outline Paul's trials. Tim quotes from Kavin Rowe: "The Christians are not out to establish Christendom. A new culture, yes, a new political movement, no." Tim points out that Paul submitted to the Roman authorities despite the flaws. It's a stance of loyalty and subversion. Tim points out that Luke is laying Paul's story on top of Jesus' story of also being on trial by the Jewish and Roman authorities. Luke wants the reader to think intelligently about how Christians should relate to the government. God's Kingdom is not a human kingdom; it is a vision of a new and better humanity. There is no such thing as being a Christian in private in the ancient world, nor should there be that option today. In part three (30:00-35:00), Jon points out that Christianity is a movement that doesn't need the same type of power that the Romans had. It's a groundswell, not a top-down approach. Tim says that Luke is trying to communicate that the Jesus movement is its own thing that doesn't fit any other type of movement in human history. In part four (35:00-end), Tim points out that Paul always seemed to interact with corrupt Roman politicians. But when he did, Paul encouraged that official to follow the road of high integrity that they aspire to. Show Resources: World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco Roman Age by Kavin Rowe https://www.amazon.com/World-Upside-Down-Reading-Graeco-Roman/dp/0199767610/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=kavin+rowe&qid=1551724935&s=gateway&sr=8-2 Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins

In part one (0:00-13:20), Tim and Jon briefly recap the series so far. They discuss Paul’s complex background. Paul was a Jew but was living primarily among Gentiles in different cities in the Roman Empire. Tim points out that because of his background, Paul’s reputation as a controversial figure continues to grow. He doesn’t fit into the normal social categories of the day. In part two (13:20-33:00), Tim dives into Acts 11:27-30: “During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.” Tim says that this is hugely symbolic. Paul is arriving back in Jerusalem with a group of international Christians bearing a gift of money to help give relief to the Jerusalem famine. Jon points out that it's really remarkable that Paul was able to raise these funds, before the days of Kickstarter. Tim says that for Paul, the gift was a symbol of the unity of the Church. There was no class system and no division across racial, ethnic, or economic lines. The gift was a representation of all that Paul believed was possible in the communities of Christians. In part three (33:00-end), Tim shares a passage from Ephesians: "Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace.” – Ephesians 2:12-15. Tim says that this passage is more evidence that Paul really wanted Jews and Gentiles to be united as one Church. Then in reference to Ephesians 3, Tim says that for Paul, the creation of the new humanity through Christ is the way that God also chooses to demonstrate his wisdom to the divine council. “Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.” – Ephesians 3:8-10. Tim says that Paul believed he was participating in a cosmic story and that working to unify Jews with all other ethnicities through Jesus was what Jesus was praying for in John 17:21: “I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.” Thank you to all of our supporters! Show Resources: World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco Roman Age by Kavin Rowe Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Carelessness Acquired in Heaven, Beautiful Eulogy

Show Notes: Welcome to our Q+R on the Son of Man! Thank you to everyone who sent in questions. Here are the questions we responded to: Matt from Australia: (0:55) I've got a question about humans and animals. It seems like animals get a really bad rap. You've been talking about when humans don't pass the test or live as they're made to live, they're not truly the image of God, they act less than human or to be true, they act like animals. And I'm wondering what about animals is so bad or so wrong? Or are you trying to communicate about a different reality than an animal? Thanks! Petra from the Netherlands: (6:20) In the podcast (The Empty Throne), Tim refers to the Empty Throne in Daniel 7, but if I read Daniel 7 in different translations, vs 9 says "thrones" and vs 10 "the court place." So I get the conclusion that thrones are set for the court. In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells his disciples that they will sit on the 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel. I don't assume that's specific because in Revelation it says 24. My question is, where do you get the conclusion that the empty throne refers to the Son of Man because I come to the conclusion that it refers to the court. Thank you! Rachel from Delaware: (12:35) This is a question I've always had: where is Daniel in Daniel 3? Stephanie from Virginia: (21:05) My question is, why is Daniel portrayed as a new human, a new Adam, when he is not THE new human, the Messiah to come? John from North Wales: (21:20) I've found this series on the Son of Man really exciting. I have a question about Daniel. I was struck when you were taking us through those first chapters in the book of Daniel that Daniel himself actually seems to be a flawless human being. My working paradigm was that there are no heroes in the Old Testament except for God himself, but Daniel does actually seems to pass the test (or at least to not really fail the test at any particular point). So how do you interpret the figure of Daniel? Thanks! Sam from Ohio: (26:04) In Daniel 7:18, 22, 27, it speaks of the saints being given the dominion and kingdom to possess forever. Verse 27 ends by saying, "All dominions shall serve and obey them." But the ESV footnote says it might end by saying, "All dominions shall serve and obey him." Is it a possible interpretation to view the Son of Man as a figurative representation of all the saints of the Most High rather than a specific individual? Or what is the connection between the individual and the collective groups of saints? Thanks! Douglas from Rwanda: (40:15) I was curious about the use of the word "son of man" in other Old Testament books such as Ezekiel. Ezekiel appears to be written before Daniel and they use the exact same word "son of man." I wonder if you know if it has a different meaning, and if not, how is it related to Daniel's use of "son of man?" Thank you! Ivan from El Salvador: (43:20) I love the conversation about the Son of God and how he's someone God gave that title. How, with that definition, do we read John 1:12 that whoever receives him will be called a son of God? How do we understand that, or does John have a different definition in mind? Thank you to all of our supporters! Find more resources at www.thebibleproject.com Show produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Theme music: Defender Instrumental, Tents

In part one (0:00-13:15), Tim and Jon briefly recap the series so far. Then Tim says that there are three different nuances that Jesus uses when describing himself as the Son of Man. The first nuance is Jesus calling himself the Son of Man when saying that he has divine authority. Here’s an example from Mark 2:8-12: "Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic, “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.” And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.” Tim says that when Jesus says, “The son of man has authority on earth,” it is recalling Adam/humanity's forfeited authority over the land/earth in Genesis 1. In the story, Jesus steps in as an Adam figure and also a high priest figure. The major part of the priests' job is to intercede for sinners and offer sacrifices of atonement for them. Jesus picks up the Adam-priest mantle in this story. Tim quotes from scholar Joel Marcus: “Adam was created to be the terrestrial representative of the heavenly king, to rule on earth as God rules in heaven… Jesus here emphasizes that his authority to forgive sin on earth derives its ultimate authority from God’s prerogative to forgive sins in heaven… The first Adam is associated with both royal rule and with sin and death, and so here Jesus is portrayed as the royal human who has power over both sin and death.” -- Joel Marcus, Son of Man as Son of Adam, 372-373. In part two (13:15-26:30), the guys dive into another example from Mark 2:23-28: "And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And He *said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made because of the human, and not the human because of the Sabbath. So the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” Tim observes that the Sabbath in Genesis 1 is an ideal of new creation that the first Adam never fully attained, and so it remained to be attained by a future son of man. Jesus is claiming to be that one. Tim quotes from Joel Marcus again: “From Genesis itself, to be sure, one might get the impression that the Sabbath was not created “because of the human,” but “for/because of God.” God rested on the seventh day from the labor of the preceding six, and therefore hallowed the seventh day in perpetuity… However, in Jewish tradition, scholars went to great pains to make clear that God wasn’t tired...but that the purpose of the Sabbath was for humanity, to provide rest for them… A similar line of thought is found here in Mark 2, the Sabbath was created for Adam’s sake and for the humanity he represents, not the other way around. The Sabbath was built into the structure of the world that was made subject to Adam. Therefore, Adam’s final son (the son of man), who has recovered dominion that his great forefather had forfeited, is the Lord not only of the world in general, but of the Sabbath in particular.” -- Joel Marcus, The Son of Man as the Son of Adam, 375-376. In part three (26:30-36:00), Tim talks about the second nuance that Jesus uses when referring to himself as the Son of Man; he describes himself as suffering. The guys examine Mark 10:35-45: "James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, *came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. “But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” “Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John. Calling them to Himself, Jesus *said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. “But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Tim cites Joel Marcus again saying that Mark 10:45 may be paraphrased as such: “Like his great ancestor Adam before the fall, the Son of Adam had the right and authority to be served, as ruler of all creatures on earth. But instead of exercising this right, the Son of Man has become the slave of all humanity, even to the point of dying for them. In so doing, he has reversed the effect of Adam’s sin, the death which he passed onto his offspring; the one Son of Adam has given his life as a ransom for the many children of Adam who were deprived of their life by the transgression of “the human.” -- Joel Marcus, Son of God as Son of Adam. In part four (36:00-43:15), Tim continues examining this story by Jesus. Jesus believes that he, as the Son of Man is going to rule by serving and suffering. Tim says that this idea becomes significant when thinking about the Christian tradition of baptism. It is a symbolic representation of following Christ through the veil of death to be resurrected to new, real, eternal life after. In part five (43:15-59:50), Tim points out the third nuance that Jesus uses to show himself as the Son of Man: the Son of Man will be vindicated after death. Jon notes that understanding these nuances really helps to fill in a lot of the blanks that round out Jesus' identity and actions. In part six (59:50-end), Tim and Jon recap the whole series. Tim shares a final quote from Joel Marcus: “The Son of Man” is an apocalyptic symbolic figure. It the Son of Man is a new Adam, then the Jesus of the Gospels presents himself as the founder of a new humanity. This is why the Gospel authors depict Jesus as carrying out his ministry in the “last days”, as the recapitulation and perfection of “the beginning.” In this context, the good news of Jesus’ opening message in Mark 1:15 (“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near!”) is not simply that time of waiting for a new event to happen is over. Rather, he means that the old universe is dying and a new creation is being born.” -- Joel Marcus, Son of Man as Son of Adam, 385. Thank you to all of our supporters! Have a question? Send it to info@jointhebibleproject.com Show Produced By: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins, Tim Mackie Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Royalty Free Spanish Guitar Amber, The Loyalist Heal My Sorrows Where Peace and Rest are Found Moon, Lemmino Show Resources: Brandon Crowe, The Last Adam: A Theology of the Obedient Life of Jesus in the Gospels Joel Marcus, The Son of Man as the Son of Adam Our video on the Son of Man: https://bit.ly/2D3wD9o