Podcast appearances and mentions of ben witherington iii

The film "Once Saved, Always Saved?" is a thought-provoking documentary that examines the controversial doctrine of eternal security in Christianity. Through interviews with scholars, theologians, and religious leaders, the film delves into the historical origins and biblical arguments for and against the belief that once a person is saved, their salvation cannot be lost. The documentary traces the development of this doctrine from the early church through influential figures like Augustine and Calvin. It highlights the lack of consensus on eternal security throughout church history and among Christian denominations today. The film doesn't shy away from the complexities of the issue, presenting a range of viewpoints with clarity and respect. Viewers will come away with a deeper understanding of the key scriptures and theological arguments on both sides of the discussion. Whether you're a pastor, theologian, or simply a curious believer, "Once Saved, Always Saved?" is an essential resource for anyone seeking to understand the debate over eternal security. With its expert insights and thought-provoking perspectives, this documentary is sure to spark meaningful discussions and challenge viewers to dive deeper into the Scriptures and the rich tradition of Christian theology. Featuring: Dr. Scot McKnight https://www.christianitytoday.com/sco... Dr. John Oswalt https://www.amazon.com/stores/John-Os... Dr. Michael Brown https://thelineoffire.org/ Zac Poonen / ‪@cfcindiaVideos‬ Joe Schimmel https://blessedhopechapel.org/about/j... Dr. Ben Witherington III https://www.amazon.com/stores/Ben-Wit... David Bercot / ‪@ScrollPublishing‬ Dr. Matthew Pinson https://matthewpinson.com/ Jesse Morrell / ‪@bibletheology‬ Douglas Jacoby https://www.douglasjacoby.com/ Sharon Johnson / ‪@motivatingu2win‬

Richard Bauckham est un expert britannique du Nouveau Testament, de confession anglicane. Son livre Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, publié en 2006, défend l'idée que les évangiles sont basés sur des témoins directs des événements. Il s'oppose ainsi aux nombreux experts qui parlent de traditions anonymes, transmises aux évangélistes par des communautés où les récits avaient pris forme et évolué.Cet ouvrage a été largement cité dans le milieu académique, parce qu'il bouscule des idées bien établies dans la réflexion académique. Ben Witherington III, par exemple, voit dans cet ouvrage un changement de paradigme dans l'étude des évangiles.Dans ce balado, nous vous en présentons quelques points clés :Les personnages secondaires sont rarement nommés. Cependant, quand un évangéliste prend la peine de nommer tel aveugle ou tel disciple, c'est parce que cette personne est une des sources, voire LA source, pour le récit raconté. (Ex. Bartimée, l'aveugle de Jéricho, ou Simon de Cyrène, celui qui porta la croix de Jésus.)Marc utilise un procédé littéraire pour souligner que son témoin principal est Pierre, le leader des Douze. Ce procédé s'appelle un inclusio. Et cette donnée corrobore le témoignage de Papias (un contemporain des apôtres), qui rapporte que Marc était le scribe de Pierre. Si on a effectivement le témoignage d'un tel apôtre, on se retrouve aux premières loges de la vie de Jésus!Les prénoms utilisés dans les évangiles et dans les Actes correspondent rigoureusement aux prénoms palestiniens de l'époque. Si des Juifs de l'Égypte ou de Rome avaient voulu inventer des récits pour mettre leur Messie en valeur, il leur aurait été très difficile de bien nommer les personnages palestiniens, car la popularité des prénoms variait grandement d'une région à l'autre.L'insistance d'évangélistes (notamment Luc et Jean) sur le fait de rapporter les faits "depuis le commencement", puisqu'il s'agissait d'une bonne façon de faire de l'histoire à cette époque. Les évangélistes avaient donc le souci de faire un compte-rendu historique.

Many of us only think about God and our faith come Sunday when we pray, praise God, hear the Word then say good bye as we go back to the rest of our mundane life. But what if the mundane was revealed to be glorious? Transcript: 

Comparing the Hebrew of Isaiah 9.6 to most popular English translations results in some serious questions. Why have our translations changed the tense of the verbs from past to future? Why is this child called “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father”? In this presentation I work through Isaiah 9.6 line by line to help you understand the Hebrew. Next I look at interpretive options for the child as well as his complicated name. Not only will this presentation strengthen your understanding of Isaiah 9.6, but it will also equip you to explain it to others. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts —— Links —— See my other articles here Check out my class: One God Over All Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read Sean’s bio here Below is the paper presented on October 18, 2024 in Little Rock, Arkansas at the 4th annual UCA Conference. Access this paper on Academia.edu to get the pdf. Full text is below, including bibliography and end notes. Abstract Working through the grammar and syntax, I present the case that Isaiah 9:6 is the birth announcement of a historical child. After carefully analyzing the name given to the child and the major interpretive options, I make a case that the name is theophoric. Like the named children of Isaiah 7 and 8, the sign-child of Isaiah 9 prophecies what God, not the child, will do. Although I argue for Hezekiah as the original fulfillment, I also see Isaiah 9:6 as a messianic prophecy of the true and better Hezekiah through whom God will bring eternal deliverance and peace. Introduction Paul D. Wegner called Isaiah 9:6[1] “one of the most difficult problems in the study of the Old Testament.”[2] To get an initial handle on the complexities of this text, let's begin briefly by comparing the Hebrew to a typical translation. Isaiah 9:6 (BHS[3]) כִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּ֚ן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ וַתְּהִ֥י הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה עַל־שִׁכְמ֑וֹ וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ פֶּ֠לֶא יוֹעֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִיעַ֖ד שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם׃ Isaiah 9:6 (ESV) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Curiosities abound in the differences between these two. The first two clauses in English, “For to us a child is born” and “to us a son is given,” employ the present tense while the Hebrew uses the perfect tense, i.e. “to us a child has been born.”[4] This has a significant bearing on whether we take the prophecy as a statement about a child already born in Isaiah's time or someone yet to come (or both). The ESV renders the phrase,וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ  (vayikra sh'mo), as “and his name shall be called,” but the words literally mean “and he called his name” where the “he” is unspecified. This leaves room for the possibility of identifying the subject of the verb in the subsequent phrase, i.e. “And the wonderful counselor, the mighty God called his name…” as many Jewish translations take it.  Questions further abound regardingאֵל גִּבּוֹר (el gibbor), which finds translations as disparate as the traditional “Mighty God”[5] to “divine warrior”[6] to “in battle God-like”[7] to “Mighty chief”[8] to “Godlike hero,”[9] to Luther's truncated “Held.”[10]  Another phrase that elicits a multiplicity of translations is אֲבִיעַד (aviad). Although most versions read “Eternal Father,”[11] others render the word, “Father-Forever,”[12] “Father for all time,”[13] “Father of perpetuity,”[14] “Father of the Eternal Age,”[15] and “Father of Future.”[16] Translators from a range of backgrounds struggle with these two phrases. Some refuse to translate them at all, preferring clunky transliterations.[17] Still, as I will show below, there's a better way forward. If we understand that the child had a theophoric name—a name that is not about him, but about God—our problems dissipate like morning fog before the rising sun. Taking the four pairs of words this way yields a two-part sentence name. As we'll see this last approach is not only the best contextual option, but it also allows us to take the Hebrew vocabulary, grammar, and syntax at face value, rather than succumbing to strained translations and interpretational gymnastics. In the end, we're left with a text literally rendered and hermeneutically robust. Called or Will Call His Name? Nearly all the major Christian versions translate וַיִּקְרָא (vayikra), “he has called,” as “he will be called.” This takes an active past tense verb as a passive future tense.[18] What is going on here? Since parents typically give names at birth or shortly thereafter, it wouldn't make sense to suggest the child was already born (as the beginning of Isa 9:6 clearly states), but then say he was not yet named. Additionally, וַיִּקְרָא (vayikra) is a vav-conversive plus imperfect construction that continues the same timing sequence of the preceding perfect tense verbs.[19] If the word were passive (niphal binyan) we would read וַיִּקָּרֵא (vayikarey) instead of וַיִּקְרָא (vayikra). Although some have suggested an emendation of the Masoretic vowels to make this change, Hugh Williamson notes, “there is no overriding need to prefer it.”[20] Translators may justify rendering the perfect tense as imperfect due to the idiom called a prophetic past tense (perfectum propheticum). Wilhelm Gesenius notes the possibility that a prophet “so transports himself in imagination into the future that he describes the future event as if it had been already seen or heard by him.”[21] Bruce Waltke recognizes the phenomenon, calling it an accidental perfective in which “a speaker vividly and dramatically represents a future situation both as complete and independent.”[22] Still, it's up to the interpreter to determine if Isaiah employs this idiom or not. The verbs of verse 6 seem quite clear: “a child has been born for us … and the government was on his shoulder … and he has called his name…” When Isaiah uttered this prophecy, the child had already been born and named and the government rested on his shoulders. This is the straightforward reading of the grammar and therefore should be our starting point.[23] Hezekiah as the Referent One of the generally accepted principles of hermeneutics is to first ask the question, “What did this text mean in its original context?” before asking, “What does this text mean to us today?” When we examine the immediate context of Isa 9:6, we move beyond the birth announcement of a child with an exalted name to a larger prophecy of breaking the yoke of an oppressor (v4) and the ushering in of a lasting peace for the throne of David (v7). Isaiah lived in a tumultuous time. He saw the northern kingdom—the nation of Israel—uprooted from her land and carried off by the powerful and cruel Assyrian Empire. He prophesied about a child whose birth had signaled the coming freedom God would bring from the yoke of Assyria. As Jewish interpreters have long pointed out, Hezekiah nicely fits this expectation.[24] In the shadow of this looming storm, Hezekiah became king and instituted major religious reforms,[25] removing idolatry and turning the people to Yahweh. The author of kings gave him high marks: “He trusted in Yahweh, the God of Israel. After him there was no one like him among all the kings of Judah nor among those who were before him” (2 Kgs 18:5).[26] Then, during Hezekiah's reign, Sennacherib sent a large army against Judea and laid siege to Jerusalem. Hezekiah appropriately responded to the threatening Assyrian army by tearing his clothes, covering himself with sackcloth, and entering the temple to pray (2 Kings 19:1). He sent word to Isaiah, requesting prayer for the dire situation. Ultimately God brought miraculous deliverance, killing 185,000 Assyrians, which precipitated a retreat. There had not been such an acute military deliverance since the destruction of Pharaoh's army in the sea. Indeed, Hezekiah's birth did signal God's coming deliverance. In opposition to Hezekiah as the referent for Isa 9:6, Christian interpreters have pointed out that Hezekiah did not fulfill this prophecy en toto. Specifically, Hezekiah did not usher in “an endless peace” with justice and righteousness “from this time onward and forevermore” (Isa. 9:7). But, as John Roberts points out, the problem only persists if we ignore prophetic hyperbole. Here's what he says: If Hezekiah was the new king idealized in this oracle, how could Isaiah claim he would reign forever? How could Isaiah so ignore Israel's long historical experience as to expect no new source of oppression would ever arise? The language, as is typical of royal ideology, is hyperbolic, and perhaps neither Isaiah nor his original audience would have pushed it to its limits, beyond its conventional frames of reference, but the language itself invites such exploitation. If one accepts God's providential direction of history, it is hard to complain about the exegetical development this exploitation produced.[27] Evangelical scholar Ben Witherington III likewise sees a reference to both Hezekiah and a future deliverer. He writes, “[T]he use of the deliberately hyperbolic language that the prophet knew would not be fulfilled in Hezekiah left open the door quite deliberately to look for an eschatological fulfillment later.”[28] Thus, even if Isaiah's prophecy had an original referent, it left the door open for a true and better Hezekiah, who would not just defeat Assyria, but all evil, and not just for a generation, but forever. For this reason, it makes sense to take a “both-and” approach to Isa 9:6. Who Called His Name? Before going on to consider the actual name given to the child, we must consider the subject of the word וַיִּקְרָא (vayikra), “and he called.” Jewish interpreters have and continue to take אֵל גִבּוֹר (el gibbor), “Mighty God,” as the subject of this verb. Here are a few examples of this rendering: Targum Jonathan (2nd century) And his name has been called from before the One Who Causes Wonderful Counsel, God the Warrior, the Eternally Existing One—the Messiah who will increase peace upon us in his days.[29] Shlomo Yitzchaki (11th century) The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah's name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days.[30] Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi (16th century) “For a child is born to us.” A son will be born and this is Hezekiah. Though Ahaz is an evildoer, his son Hezekiah will be a righteous king. He will be strong in his service of the Holy One. He will study Torah and the Holy One will call him, “eternal father, peaceful ruler.” In his days there will be peace and truth.[31] The Stone Edition of the Tanach (20th century) The Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of Peace][32] Although sometimes Christian commentators blithely accuse Jewish scholars of avoiding the implications of calling the child “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father,” the grammar does allow multiple options here. The main question is whether Isaiah specified the subject of the verb וַיִקְרָ (vayikra) or not. If he has, then the subject must be אֵל גִבּוֹר (el gibbor). If he has not, then the subject must be indefinite (i.e. “he” or “one”). What's more, the Masoretic punctuation of the Hebrew suggests the translation, “and the Wonderful Adviser, the Mighty God called his name, ‘Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace'”[33] However, Keil and Delitzsch point out problems with this view on both grammatical and contextual grounds. They write: [I]t is impossible to conceive for what precise reason such a periphrastic description of God should be employed in connection with the naming of this child, as is not only altogether different from Isaiah's usual custom, but altogether unparalleled in itself, especially without the definite article. The names of God should at least have been defined thus, הַיּוֹעֵץ פֵּלֶא הַגִּבּוֹר, so as to distinguish them from the two names of the child.”[34] Thus, though the Masoretic markings favor the Jewish translation, the grammar doesn't favor taking “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God” as the subject. It's certainly not impossible, but it is a strained reading without parallels in Isaiah and without justification in the immediate context. Let's consider another possibility. His Name Has Been Called Instead of taking אֵל גִּבּוֹר (el gibbor) as the subject, we can posit an indefinite subject for וַיִקְרָ (vayikra): “one has called.” Examples of this outside of Isaiah 9:6 include Gen 11:9; 25:26; Exod 15:23; and 2 Sam 2:16. The phenomenon appears in Gesenius (§144d) and Joüon and Muraoka (§155e), both of which include our text as examples. However, the translation “one has called his name” is awkward in English due to our lack of a generic pronoun like on in French or man in German. Accordingly, most translations employ the passive construction: “his name has been called,” omitting the subject.[35] This is apparently also how those who produced the Septuagint (LXX) took the Hebrew text, employing a passive rather than an active verb.[36] In conclusion, the translation “his name has been called” works best in English. Mighty Hero Now we broach the question of how to render אֵל גִּבּוֹר el gibbor. As I've already noted, a few translations prefer “mighty hero.” But this reading is problematic since it takes the two words in reverse order. Although in English we typically put an adjective before the noun it modifies, in Hebrew the noun comes first and then any adjectives that act upon it. Taking the phrase as אֵל גִּבּוֹר (gibbor el) makes “mighty” the noun and “God” the adjective. Now since the inner meaning of אֵל (el) is “strong” or “mighty,” and גִּבּוֹר gibbor means “warrior” or “hero,” we can see how translators end up with “mighty warrior” or “divine hero.” Robert Alter offers the following explanation: The most challenging epithet in this sequence is ‘el gibor [sic], which appears to say “warrior-god.” The prophet would be violating all biblical usage if he called the Davidic king “God,” and that term is best construed here as some sort of intensifier. In fact, the two words could conceivably be a scribal reversal of gibor ‘el, in which case the second word would clearly function as a suffix of intensification as it occasionally does elsewhere in the Bible.[37] Please note that Alter's motive for reversing the two words is that the text, as it stands, would violate all biblical usage by calling the Davidic king “God.” But Alter is incorrect. We have another biblical usage calling the Davidic king “God” in Psalm 45:6. We must allow the text to determine interpretation. Changing translation for the sake of theology is allowing the tail to wag the dog. Another reason to doubt “divine warrior” as a translation is that “Wherever ʾēl gibbôr occurs elsewhere in the Bible there is no doubt that the term refers to God (10:21; cf. also Deut. 10:17; Jer. 32:18),” notes John Oswalt.[38] Keil and Delitzsch likewise see Isa 10:21 as the rock upon which these translations suffer shipwreck.[39] “A remnant will return,” says Isa 10:21, “the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.” The previous verse makes it clear that “mighty God” refers to none other than “Yahweh, the holy one of Israel.” Without counter examples elsewhere in the Bible, we lack the basis to defy the traditional ordering of “God” as the noun and “mighty” or “warrior” as the adjective.[40] Mighty God-Man Did Isaiah foresee a human child who would also be the mighty God? Did he suddenly get “a glimpse of the fact that in the fullness of the Godhead there is a plurality of Persons,” as Edward Young thought?[41] Although apologists seeking to prove the deity of Christ routinely push for this reading, other evangelical scholars have expressed doubts about such a bold interpretation.[42] Even Keil and Delitzsch, after zealously batting away Jewish alternatives, admit Isaiah's language would not have suggested an incarnate deity in its original context.[43] Still, it would not be anachronistic to regard a king as a deity in the context of the ancient Near East. We find such exalted language in parallels from Egypt and Assyria in their accession oracles (proclamations given at the time a new king ascends the throne). Taking their cue from the Egyptian practices of bestowing divine throne names upon the Pharaoh's accession to the throne, G. von Rad and A. Alt envisioned a similar practice in Jerusalem. Although quite influential, Wegner has pointed out several major problems with this way of looking at our text: (1) the announcement is to the people in Isa 9:6, not the king; (2) Isa 9:6 does not use adoption language nor call the child God's son; (3) יֶלֶד (yeled), “child,” is never used in accession oracles; (4) the Egyptian parallels have five titles not four as in Isa 9:6; (5) Egyptians employ a different structure for accession oracles than Isa 9:6; and (6) we have no evidence elsewhere that Judean kings imitated the Egyptian custom of bestowing divine titles.[44] Another possibility, argued by R. A. Carlson, is to see the names as anti-Assyrian polemic.[45] Keeping in mind that Assyria was constantly threatening Judah in the lifetime of Isaiah and that the child born was to signal deliverance, it would be no surprise that Isaiah would cast the child as a deliberate counter-Assyrian hero. Still, as Oswalt points out, “[T]he Hebrews did not believe this [that their kings were gods]. They denied that the king was anything more than the representative of God.”[46] Owing to a lack of parallels within Israel and Isaiah's own penchant for strict monotheism,[47] interpreting Isa 9:6 as presenting a God-man is ad hoc at best and outright eisegesis at worst. Furthermore, as I've already noted, the grammar of the passage indicates a historical child who was already born. Thus, if Isaiah meant to teach the deity of the child, we'd have two God-men: Hezekiah and Jesus. Far from a courtly scene of coronation, Wegner makes the case that our text is really a birth announcement in form. Birth announcements have (1) a declaration of the birth, (2) an announcement of the child's name, (3) an explanation of what the name means, and (4) a further prophecy about the child's future.[48] These elements are all present in Isa 9:6, making it a much better candidate for a birth announcement than an accession or coronation oracle. As a result, we should not expect divine titles given to the king like when the Pharaohs or Assyrian kings ascended the throne; instead, we ought to look for names that somehow relate to the child's career. We will delve more into this when we broach the topic of theophoric names. Mighty God's Agent Another possibility is to retain the traditional translation of “mighty God” and see the child as God's agent who bears the title. In fact, the Bible calls Moses[49] and the judges[50] of Israel אֱלֹהִים (elohim), “god(s),” due to their role in representing God. Likewise, as I've already mentioned, the court poet called the Davidic King “god” in Ps 45:6. Additionally, the word אֵל (el), “god,” refers to representatives of Yahweh whether divine (Ps 82:1, 6) or human (John 10.34ff).[51] Thus, Isa 9:6 could be another case in which a deputized human acting as God's agent is referred to as God. The NET nicely explains: [H]aving read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king's deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as “God” because he ruled and fought as God's representative on earth. …When the king's enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself.[52] Raymond Brown admits that this “may have been looked on simply as a royal title.”[53] Likewise Williamson sees this possibility as “perfectly acceptable,” though he prefers the theophoric approach.[54] Even the incarnation-affirming Keil and Delitzsch recognize that calling the child אֵל גִּבּוֹר (el gibbor) is “nothing further…than this, that the Messiah would be the image of God as no other man ever had been (cf., El, Ps. 82:1), and that He would have God dwelling within Him (cf., Jer. 33:16).”[55] Edward L. Curtis similarly points out that had Isaiah meant to teach that the child would be an incarnation of Yahweh, he would have “further unfolded and made central this thought” throughout his book.[56] He likewise sees Isa 9:6 not as teaching “the incarnation of a deity” but as a case “not foreign to Hebrew usage to apply divine names to men of exalted position,” citing Exod 21:6 and Ps 82:6 as parallels.[57] Notwithstanding the lexical and scholarly support for this view, not to mention my own previous position[58] on Isa 9:6, I'm no longer convinced that this is the best explanation. It's certainly possible to call people “Gods” because they are his agents, but it is also rare. We'll come to my current view shortly, but for now, let's approach the second controversial title. Eternal Father The word אֲבִיעַד (aviad), “Eternal Father,” is another recognizable appellative for Yahweh. As I mentioned in the introduction, translators have occasionally watered down the phrase, unwilling to accept that a human could receive such a title. But humans who pioneer an activity or invent something new are fathers.[59] Walking in someone's footsteps is metaphorically recognizing him as one's father.[60] Caring for others like a father is yet another way to think about it.[61] Perhaps the child is a father in one of these figurative senses. If we follow Jerome and translate אֲבִיעַד (aviad) as Pater futuri saeculi, “Father of the future age,” we can reconfigure the title, “Eternal Father,” from eternal without beginning to eternal with a beginning but without an end. However, notes Williamson, “There is no parallel to calling the king ‘Father,' rather the king is more usually designated as God's son.”[62] Although we find Yahweh referred to as “Father” twice in Isaiah (Isa 63:16; 64:7), and several more times throughout the Old Testament,[63] the Messiah is not so called. Even in the New Testament we don't see the title applied to Jesus. Although not impossible to be taken as Jesus's fatherly role to play in the age to come, the most natural way to take אֲבִיעַד (aviad) is as a reference to Yahweh. In conclusion, both “mighty God” and “eternal Father” most naturally refer to Yahweh and not the child. If this is so, why is the child named with such divine designations? A Theophoric Name Finally, we are ready to consider the solution to our translation and interpretation woes. Israelites were fond of naming their kids with theophoric names (names that “carry God”). William Holladay explains: Israelite personal names were in general of two sorts. Some of them were descriptive names… But most Israelite personal names were theophoric; that is, they involve a name or title or designation of God, with a verb or adjective or noun which expresses a theological affirmation. Thus “Hezekiah” is a name which means “Yah (= Yahweh) is my strength,” and “Isaiah” is a name which means “Yah (= Yahweh) has brought salvation.” It is obvious that Isaiah is not called “Yahweh”; he bears a name which says something about Yahweh.[64] As Holladay demonstrates, when translating a theophoric name, it is customary to supplement the literal phrase with the verb, “to be.” Hezekiah = “Yah (is) my strength”; Isaiah = “Yah (is) salvation.” Similarly, Elijah means “My God (is) Yah” and Eliab, “My God (is the) Father.” Theophoric names are not about the child; they are about the God of the parents. When we imagine Elijah's mother calling him for dinner, she's literally saying “My God (is) Yah(weh), it's time for dinner.” The child's name served to remind her who her God was. Similarly, these other names spoke of God's strength, salvation, and fatherhood. To interpret the named child of Isa 9:6 correctly, we must look at the previously named children in Isa 7 and 8. In chapter 7 the boy is called “Immanuel,” meaning “God (is) with us” (Isa 7:14). This was a historical child who signaled prophecy. Isaiah said, “For before the boy knows to reject evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be abandoned” (Isa 7:16). In Isa 8:1 we encounter “Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz,” or “The spoil speeds, the prey hastens.”[65] This child has a two-sentence name with an attached prophecy: “For before the boy calls, ‘my father' or ‘my mother,' the strength of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off before the king of Assyria” (Isa 8:4). Both children's sign names did not describe them nor what they would do, but what God would do for his people. Immanuel is a statement of faith. The name means God has not abandoned his people; they can confidently say, “God is with us” (Isa 8:10). Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz does not mean that the child would become a warrior to sack Damascus and seize her spoils, but that God would bring about the despoiling of Judah's enemy. When we encounter a third sign-named child in as many chapters, we are on solid contextual grounds to see this new, longer name in the same light. Isaiah prophecies that this child has the government upon his shoulder, sits on the throne of David, and will establish a lasting period of justice and righteousness (Isa 9:5, 7). This child bears the name “Pele-Yoets-El-Gibbor-Aviad-Sar-Shalom.” The name describes his parents' God, the mighty God, the eternal Father. Although this perspective has not yet won the day, it is well attested in a surprising breadth of resources. Already in 1867, Samuel David Luzzatto put forward this position.[66] The Jewish Publication Society concurred in their 2014 study Bible: Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God … These names do not describe that person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship. Similarly, the name given to the child in this v. does not describe that child or attribute divinity to him, but describes God's actions.[67] The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) footnote on Isa. 9:6 says, “As in many Israelite personal names, the deity, not the person named, is being described.”[68] Additional scholars advocating the view also include Holladay (1978), Wegner (1992), Goldingay (1999, 2015), and Williamson (2018). Even so, Keil and Delitzsch eschew “such a sesquipedalian name,” calling it “unskillful,” and arguing that it would be impractical “to be uttered in one breath.”[69] But this is to take the idea too literally. No one is going to actually call the child by this name. John Goldingay helpfully explains: So he has that complicated name, “An-extraordinary-counselor-is-the-warrior-God, the-everlasting-Father-is-an-officer-for-well-being.” Like earlier names in Isaiah (God-is-with-us, Remains-Will-Return, Plunder-hurries-loot-rushes), the name is a sentence. None of these names are the person's everyday name—as when the New Testament says that Jesus will be called Immanuel, “God [is] with us,” without meaning this expression is Jesus' name. Rather, the person somehow stands for whatever the “name” says. God gives him a sign of the truth of the expression attached to him. The names don't mean that the person is God with us, or is the remains, or is the plunder, and likewise this new name doesn't mean the child is what the name says. Rather he is a sign and guarantee of it. It's as if he goes around bearing a billboard with that message and with the reminder that God commissioned the billboard.[70] Still, there's the question of identifying Yahweh as שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם (sar shalom). Since most of our translations render the phrase “Prince of Peace,” and the common meaning of a prince is someone inferior to the king, we turn away from labeling God with this title. Although HALOT mentions “representative of the king, official” for the first definition their second is “person of note, commander.”[71] The BDB glosses “chieftain, chief, ruler, official, captain, prince” as their first entry.[72] Wegner adds: “The book of Isaiah also appears to use the word sar in the general sense of “ruler.””[73] Still, we must ask, is it reasonable to think of Yahweh as a שַׂר (sar)? We find the phrase שַׂר־הַצָּבָא (sar-hatsava), “prince of hosts,” in Daniel 8:11 and שַׂר־שָׂרִים (sar-sarim), “prince of princes,” in verse 25, where both refer to God.[74]  The UBS Translators' Handbook recommends “God, the chief of the heavenly army” for verse 11 and “the greatest of all kings” for verse 25.[75] The handbook discourages using “prince,” since “the English word ‘prince' does not mean the ruler himself but rather the son of the ruler, while the Hebrew term always designates a ruler, not at all implying son of a ruler.”[76] I suggest applying this same logic to Isa 9:6. Rather than translating שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם (sar shalom) as “Prince of Peace,” we can render it, “Ruler of Peace” or “Ruler who brings peace.” Translating the Name Sentences Now that I've laid out the case for the theophoric approach, let's consider translation possibilities. Wegner writes, “the whole name should be divided into two parallel units each containing one theophoric element.”[77] This makes sense considering the structure of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which translates two parallel name sentences: “The spoil speeds, the prey hastens.” Here are a few options for translating the name. Jewish Publication Society (1917) Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace[78] William Holladay (1978) Planner of wonders; God the war hero (is) Father forever; prince of well-being[79] New Jewish Publication Society (1985) The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler[80] John Goldingay (1999) One who plans a wonder is the warrior God; the father for ever is a commander who brings peace[81] John Goldingay (2015) An-extraordinary-counselor-is-the-warrior-God, the-everlasting-Fathers-is-an-official-for-well-being[82] Hugh Williamson (2018) A Wonderful Planner is the Mighty God, An Eternal Father is the Prince of Peace[83] My Translation (2024) The warrior God is a miraculous strategist; the eternal Father is the ruler who brings peace[84] I prefer to translate אֵל גִּבּוֹר (el gibbor) as “warrior God” rather than “mighty God” because the context is martial, and  גִּבּוֹר(gibbor) often refers to those fighting in war.[85] “Mighty God” is ambiguous, and easily decontextualized from the setting of Isa 9:6. After all, Isa 9:4-5 tells a great victory “as on the day of Midian”—a victory so complete that they burn “all the boots of the tramping warriors” in the fire. The word פֶּלֶא (pele), though often translated “wonderful,” is actually the word for “miracle,” and יוֹעֵץ (yoets) is a participle meaning “adviser” or “planner.” Since the context is war, this “miracle of an adviser” or “miraculous planner” refers to military plans—what we call strategy, hence, “miraculous strategist.” Amazingly, the tactic God employed in the time of Hezekiah was to send out an angel during the night who “struck down one hundred eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians” (Isa 37:36). This was evidently the warrior God's miraculous plan to remove the threat of Assyria from Jerusalem's doorstep. Prophecies about the coming day of God when he sends Jesus Christ—the true and better Hezekiah—likewise foretell of an even greater victory over the nations.[86] In fact, just two chapters later we find a messianic prophecy of one who will “strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked” (Isa 11:4). The next phrase, “The eternal Father,” needs little comment since God's eternality and fatherhood are both noncontroversial and multiply attested. Literally translated, שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם (sar-shalom) is “Ruler of peace,” but I take the word pair as a genitive of product.[87] Williamson unpacks this meaning as “the one who is able to initiate and maintain Peace.”[88] That his actions in the time of Hezekiah brought peace is a matter of history. After a huge portion of the Assyrian army died, King Sennacherib went back to Nineveh, where his sons murdered him (Isa 37:37-38). For decades, Judah continued to live in her homeland. Thus, this child's birth signaled the beginning of the end for Assyria. In fact, the empire itself eventually imploded, a fate that, at Hezekiah's birth, must have seemed utterly unthinkable. Of course, the ultimate peace God will bring through his Messiah will far outshine what Hezekiah achieved.[89] Conclusion We began by considering the phraseוַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ  (vayikra sh'mo). We noted that the tense is perfect, which justifies a past-tense interpretation of the child who had already been born by the time of the birth announcement. I presented the case for Hezekiah as the initial referent of Isa 9:6 based on the fact that Hezekiah’s life overlapped with Isaiah’s, that he sat on the throne of David (v7), and that his reign saw the miraculous deliverance from Assyria's army. Furthermore, I noted that identifying the child of Isa 9:6 as Hezekiah does not preclude a true and better one to come. Although Isa 9:6 does not show up in the New Testament, I agree with the majority of Christians who recognize this text as a messianic prophecy, especially when combined with verse 7. Next we puzzled over the subject for phraseוַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ  (vayikra sh'mo.) Two options are that the phrase פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ אֵל גִּבּוֹר (pele yoets el gibbor) functions as the subject or else the subject is indefinite. Although the Jewish interpreters overwhelmingly favor the former, the lack of definite articles and parallel constructions in Isaiah make me think the latter is more likely. Still, the Jewish approach to translation is a legitimate possibility. I explained how a passive voice makes sense in English since it hides the subject, and settled on “his name has been called,” as the best translation. Then we looked at the phrase אֵל גִּבּוֹר (el gibbor) and considered the option of switching the order of the words and taking the first as the modifier of the second as in “mighty hero” or “divine warrior.” We explored the possibility that Isaiah was ascribing deity to the newborn child. We looked at the idea of Isaiah calling the boy “Mighty God” because he represented God. In the end we concluded that these all are less likely than taking God as the referent, especially in light of the identical phrase in Isa 10:21 where it unambiguously refers to Yahweh. Moving on to אֲבִיעַד (aviad), we considered the possibility that “father” could refer to someone who started something significant and “eternal” could merely designate a coming age. Once again, though these are both possible readings, they are strained and ad hoc, lacking any indication in the text to signal a non-straightforward reading. So, as with “Mighty God,” I also take “Eternal Father” as simple references to God and not the child. Finally, we explored the notion of theophoric names. Leaning on two mainstream Bible translations and five scholars, from Luzzatto to Williamson, we saw that this lesser-known approach is quite attractive. Not only does it take the grammar at face value, it also explains how a human being could be named “Mighty God” and “Eternal Father.” The name describes God and not the child who bears it. Lastly, drawing on the work of the Jewish Publication Society, Goldingay, and Williamson, I proposed the translation: “The warrior God is a miraculous strategist; the eternal Father is the ruler who brings peace.” This rendering preserves the martial context of Isa 9:6 and glosses each word according to its most common definition. I added in the verb “is” twice as is customary when translating theophoric names. The result is a translation that recognizes God as the focus and not the child. This fits best in the immediate context, assuming Hezekiah is the original referent. After all, his greatest moment was not charging out ahead of a column of soldiers, but his entering the house of Yahweh and praying for salvation. God took care of everything else. Likewise, the ultimate Son of David will have God's spirit influencing him: a spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, and fear of God (Isa 11:2). The eternal Father will so direct his anointed that he will “not judge by what his eyes see or decide by what his ears hear” (Isa 11:3). In his days God will bring about a shalom so deep that even the animals will become peaceful (Isa 11:6-8). An advantage of this reading of Isa 9:6 is that it is compatible with the full range of christological positions Christians hold. Secondly, this approach nicely fits with the original meaning in Isaiah’s day, and it works for the prophecy’s ultimate referent in Christ Jesus. Additionally, it is the interpretation with the least amount of special pleading. Finally, it puts everything into the correct order, allowing exegesis to drive theology rather than the other way around. Bibliography Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament. Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2012. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1917. The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. Second ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Net Bible, Full Notes Edition. Edited by W. Hall Harris III James Davis, and Michael H. Burer. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Edited by Carol A. Newsom Marc Z. Brettler, Pheme Perkins. Third ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. The Stone Edition of the Tanach. Edited by Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz. Brooklyn, NY: Artscroll, 1996. Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures: The New Jps Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. 4th, Reprint. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985. Translation of Targum Onkelos and Jonathan. Translated by Eidon Clem. Altamonte Springs, FL: OakTree Software, 2015. Alter, Rober. The Hebrew Bible: Prophets, Nevi’im. Vol. 2. 3 vols. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2019. Ashkenazi, Jacob ben Isaac. Tze’enah Ure’enah: A Critical Translation into English. Translated by Morris M. Faierstein. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017. https://www.sefaria.org/Tze’enah_Ure’enah%2C_Haftarot%2C_Yitro.31?lang=bi&with=About&lang2=en. Baumgartner, Ludwig Koehler and Walter. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Brown, Raymond E. Jesus: God and Man, edited by 3. New York: Macmillan, 1967. Carlson, R. A. “The Anti-Assyrian Character of the Oracle in Is. Ix, 1-6.” Vetus Testamentum, no. 24 (1974): 130-5. Curtis, Edward L. “The Prophecy Concerning the Child of the Four Names: Isaiah Ix., 6, 7.” The Old and New Testament Student 11, no. 6 (1890): 336-41. Delitzsch, C. F. Keil and F. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Finnegan, Sean. “Jesus Is God: Exploring the Notion of Representational Deity.” Paper presented at the One God Seminar, Seattle, WA, 2008, https://restitutio.org/2016/01/11/explanations-to-verses-commonly-used-to-teach-that-jesus-is-god/. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. Goldingay, John. “The Compound Name in Isaiah 9:5(6).” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 239-44. Goldingay, John. Isaiah for Everyone. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015. Holladay, William L. Isaiah: Scroll of Prophetic Heritage. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. III, Ben Witherington. Isaiah Old and New. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1ggjhbz.7. Luzzatto, Samuel David. Shi’ur Komah. Padua, IT: Antonio Bianchi, 1867. O’Connor, Bruce K. Waltke and Michael P. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Esenbrauns, 1990. Ogden, Graham S., and Jan Sterk. A Handbook on Isaiah. Ubs Translator's Handbooks. New York: United Bible Societies, 2011. Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39. Nicot. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986. Péter-Contesse, René and John Ellington. A Handbook on Daniel. Ubs Translator’s Handbooks. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1993. Roberts, J. J. M. First Isaiah. Vol. 23A. Hermeneia, edited by Peter Machinist. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001. Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Wegner, Paul D. “A Re-Examination of Isaiah Ix 1-6.” Vetus Testamentum 42, no. 1 (1992): 103-12. Williamson, H. G. M. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1-27. Vol. 2. International Critical Commentary, edited by G. I. Davies and C. M. Tuckett. New York: Bloomsbury, 2018. Yitzchaki, Shlomo. Complete Tanach with Rashi. Translated by A. J. Rosenberg. Chicago, IL: Davka Corp, 1998. https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Isaiah.9.5.2?lang=bi&with=About&lang2=en. Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-18. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965. End Notes [1] Throughout I'll refer to Isaiah 9:6 based on the versification used in English translations. Hebrew Bibles shift the count by one, so the same verse is Isaiah 9:5. [2] Paul D. Wegner, “A Re-Examination of Isaiah Ix 1-6,” Vetus Testamentum 42, no. 1 (1992): 103. [3] BHS is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the standard Hebrew text based on the Leningrad Codex, a medieval Masoretic text. [4] In Hebrew the perfect tense roughly maps onto English past tense and the imperfect tense to future tense. [5] See NRSVUE, ESV, NASB20, NIV, NET, LSB, NLT, NKJ, ASV, KJV. [6] See translations by Robert Alter, James Moffat, and Duncan Heaster.  Also see Westminster Commentary, Cambridge Bible Commentary, New Century Bible Commentary, and The Daily Study Bible. [7] See New English Bible. [8] See Ibn Ezra. [9] See An American Testament. [10] “Held” means “hero” in German. In the Luther Bible (1545), he translated the phrase as “und er heißt Wunderbar, Rat, Kraft, Held, Ewig -Vater, Friedefürst,” separating power (Kraft = El) and hero (Held = Gibbor) whereas in the 1912 revision we read, “er heißt Wunderbar, Rat, Held, Ewig-Vater Friedefürst,” which reduced el gibbor to “Held” (hero). [11] See fn 4 above. [12] See New American Bible Revised Edition and An American Testament. [13] See New English Bible and James Moffatt's translation. [14] See Ibn Ezra. [15] See Duncan Heaster's New European Version. [16] See Word Biblical Commentary. [17] See Jewish Publication Society translation of 1917, the Koren Jerusalem Bible, and the Complete Jewish Bible. [18] In the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1QIsaa 8.24 reads “וקרא,” the vav-conversed form of “קרא,” translated “he will call,” an active future tense. This reading is implausible considering the unambiguous past tense of the two initial clauses that began verse 6: “a child has been born…a son has been given.” [19] “Here the Hebrew begins to use imperfect verb forms with the conjunction often rendered “and.” These verbs continue the tense of the perfect verb forms used in the previous lines. They refer to a state or situation that now exists, so they may be rendered with the present tense in English. Some translations continue to use a perfect tense here (so NJB, NJPSV, FRCL), which is better.” Graham S. Ogden, and Jan Sterk, A Handbook on Isaiah, Ubs Translator's Handbooks (New York: United Bible Societies, 2011). [20] H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1-27, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary, ed. G. I. Davies and C. M. Tuckett (New York: Bloomsbury, 2018), 371. [21] Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), §106n. [22] Bruce K. Waltke and Michael P. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Esenbrauns, 1990), §30.5.1e. [23] John Goldingay takes a “both-and” position, recognizing that Isaiah was speaking by faith of what God would do in the future, but also seeing the birth of the son to the king as having already happened by the time of the prophecy. John Goldingay, Isaiah for Everyone (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015), 42. [24] Jewish authors include Rashi, A. E. Kimchi, Abravanel, Malbim, and Luzzatto. [25] See 2 Kings 18:3-7. [26] Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. [27] J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, vol. 23A, Hermeneia, ed. Peter Machinist (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 153. [28] Ben Witherington III, Isaiah Old and New (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017), 95-6, 99-100. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1ggjhbz.7. [29] Translation of Targum Onkelos and Jonathan, trans. Eidon Clem (Altamonte Springs, FL: OakTree Software, 2015). [30] Shlomo Yitzchaki, Complete Tanach with Rashi, trans. A. J. Rosenberg (Chicago, IL: Davka Corp, 1998). https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Isaiah.9.5.2?lang=bi&with=About&lang2=en. [31] Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi, Tze’enah Ure’enah: A Critical Translation into English, trans. Morris M. Faierstein (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017). https://www.sefaria.org/Tze’enah_Ure’enah%2C_Haftarot%2C_Yitro.31?lang=bi&with=About&lang2=en. [32] Square brackets in original. The Stone Edition of the Tanach, ed. Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz (Brooklyn, NY: Artscroll, 1996). [33] Net Bible, Full Notes Edition, ed. W. Hall Harris III James Davis, and Michael H. Burer, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019), 1266. [34] C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 249-50. [35] As mentioned above, the Hebrew is not actually passive. [36] The LXX reads “καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ” (kai kaleitai to onoma autou), which means “and his name is called.” [37] Rober Alter, The Hebrew Bible: Prophets, Nevi’im, vol. 2, 3 vols. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2019), 651. [38] John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1-39, Nicot (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 247. [39] Delitzsch, 252. [40] The אֵלֵי גִבּוֹרִים (eley gibborim) of Ezek 32.21 although morphologically suggestive of a plural form of el gibbor, is not a suitable parallel to Isa 9:6 since אֵלֵי (eley) is the plural of אַיִל (ayil), meaning “chief” not אֵל (el). Thus, the translation “mighty chiefs” or “warrior rulers” takes eley as the noun and gibborim as the adjective and does not actually reverse them. [41] Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-18, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 338. [42] Translator's note A on Isa 9:6 in the NET states, “[I]t is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way.” Net Bible, Full Notes Edition, 1267. [43] “The Messiah is the corporeal presence of this mighty God; for He is with Him, He is in Him, and in Him He is with Israel. The expression did not preclude the fact that the Messiah would be God and man in one person; but it did not penetrate to this depth, so far as the Old Testament consciousness was concerned.” Delitzsch, 253. [44] See Wegner 104-5. [45] See R. A. Carlson, “The Anti-Assyrian Character of the Oracle in Is. Ix, 1-6,” Vetus Testamentum, no. 24 (1974). [46] Oswalt, 246. [47] Isa 43:10-11; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 18, 21-22; 46:9. Deut 17:14-20 lays out the expectations for an Israelite king, many of which limit his power and restrict his exaltation, making deification untenable. [48] Wegner 108. [49] See Exod 4:16; 7:1. The word “God” can apply to “any person characterized by greatness or power: mighty one, great one, judge,” s.v. “אֱלֹהִים” in Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament.. The BDAG concurs, adding that a God is “that which is nontranscendent but considered worthy of special reverence or respect… of humans θεοί (as אֱלֹהִים) J[ohn] 10:34f (Ps 81:6; humans are called θ. in the OT also Ex 7:1; 22:27,” s.v. “θεός” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. [50] See Exod 21.6; 22:8-9. The BDB includes the definition, “rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power,” s.v. “אֱלֹהִים” in The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [51] Thayer points this out in his lexicon: “Hebraistically, equivalent to God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges, John 10:34f after Ps. 81:6 (Ps. 82:6)” s.v. “θέος” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. [52] Net Bible, Full Notes Edition, 1267. [53] Raymond E. Brown, Jesus: God and Man, ed. 3 (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 25. [54] Williamson, 397. [55] Delitzsch, 253. See also fn 40 above. [56] Edward L. Curtis, “The Prophecy Concerning the Child of the Four Names: Isaiah Ix., 6, 7,” The Old and New Testament Student 11, no. 6 (1890): 339. [57] Ibid. [58] Sean Finnegan, “Jesus Is God: Exploring the Notion of Representational Deity” (paper presented at the One God Seminar, Seattle, WA2008), https://restitutio.org/2016/01/11/explanations-to-verses-commonly-used-to-teach-that-jesus-is-god/. [59] Jabal was the father of those who live in tents and have livestock (Gen 4:20) and Jubal was the father of those who play the lyre and the pipe (Gen 4:21). [60] Jesus told his critics, “You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires” (John 8:44). [61] Job called himself “a father to the needy” (Job 29:16) and Isaiah prophesied that Eliakim would be “a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Isa 22:21). [62] Williamson, 397. [63] For references to Yahweh as father to the people see Deut 32:6; Ps 103:13; Prov 3:12; Jer 3:4; 31.9; Mal 1.6; 2:10. For Yahweh as father to the messiah see 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chron 7:13; 28:6; Ps 89:27. [64] William L. Holladay, Isaiah: Scroll of Prophetic Heritage (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 108. [65] See NRSVUE fn on Isa 8:1. [66] והנה המכוון במאמר פלא יועץ וגו’ הוא כי האל הגבור שהוא אבי עד ואדון השלום, הוא יועץ וגוזר לעשות פלא לישראל בזמן ממלכת הילד הנולד היום, ואח”כ מפרש למרבה המשרה וגו’. ולפי הפירוש הזה לא לחנם האריך כאן בתארי האל, כי כוונת הנביא לרמוז כי בבוא הפלא שהאל יועץ וגוזר עתה, יוודע שהוא אל גבור ובעל היכולת ושהוא אב לעד, ולא יפר בריתו עם בניו בני ישראל, ולא ישכח את ברית אבותם. ושהוא אדון השלום ואוהב השלום, ולא יאהב העריצים אשר כל חפצם לנתוש ולנתוץ ולהאביד ולהרוס, אבל הוא משפילם עד עפר, ונותן שלום בארץ, כמו שראינו בכל הדורות. Chat GPT translation: “And behold, the intention in the phrase ‘Wonderful Counselor’ and so on is that the mighty God, who is the Eternal Father and the Prince of Peace, is the Counselor and decrees to perform a wonder for Israel at the time of the reign of the child born today. Afterwards, it is explained as ‘to increase the dominion’ and so on. According to this interpretation, it is not in vain that the prophet elaborates on the attributes of God here, for the prophet’s intention is to hint that when the wonder that God now advises and decrees comes about, it will be known that He is the Mighty God and possesses the ability and that He is the Eternal Father. He will not break His covenant with His sons, the children of Israel, nor forget the covenant of their ancestors. He is the Prince of Peace and loves peace, and He will not favor the oppressors whose every desire is to tear apart, destroy, and obliterate, but He will humble them to the dust and grant peace to the land, as we have seen throughout the generations.” Samuel David Luzzatto, Shi’ur Komah (Padua, IT: Antonio Bianchi, 1867). Accessible at Sefaria and the National Library of Israel. [67]The Jewish Study Bible, ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Second ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 784. [68] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Carol A. Newsom Marc Z. Brettler, Pheme Perkins, Third ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 991. [69] Delitzsch, 249. [70] Goldingay, 42-3. [71] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 2000). [72] See s.v. “שַׂר” in The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [73] Wegner 112. [74] Keil and Delitzsch say the sar of Dan 8:11 refers to “the God of heaven and the King of Israel, the Prince of princes, as He is called in v. 25,” Delitzsch, 297. [75] René and John Ellington Péter-Contesse, A Handbook on Daniel, Ubs Translator’s Handbooks (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1993). [76] Ibid. [77] Wegner 110-1. [78] The main text transliterates “Pele-joez-el-gibbor-/Abi-ad-sar-shalom,” while the footnote translates as indicated above. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1917), 575. [79] Holladay, 109. [80] Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures: The New Jps Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (4th: repr., Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985), 634. [81] John Goldingay, “The Compound Name in Isaiah 9:5(6),” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 243. [82] Goldingay, Isaiah for Everyone, 40. [83] Williamson, 355. [84] An alternative is “The warrior God is planning a miracle; the eternal Father is the ruler of peace.” [85] For גִּבּוֹר in a military context, see 1 Sam 17:51; 2 Sam 20.7; 2 Kgs 24:16; Isa 21.17; Jer 48:41; Eze 39:20; and Joel 2:7; 3:9. [86] See 2 Thess 2:8 and Rev 19:11-21 (cp. Dan 7:13-14). [87] See Gesenius § 128q, which describes a genitive of “statements of the purpose for which something is intended.” [88] Williamson, 401. [89] Isaiah tells of a time when God will “judge between nations,” resulting in the conversion of the weapons of war into the tools of agriculture and a lasting era when “nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more” (Isa 2:4).

Explore biblical prophecy with esteemed biblical scholar Dr. Ben Witherington III as he discusses his book, "Jesus the Seer: The Progress of Prophecy." Jesus the Seer explores the profound role of prophecy in both the Old and New Testaments and how it all points to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.Dr. Witherington unpacks the historical and theological contexts of prophecy, shedding light on its significance in the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman world. He explains how ancient cultures relied on diviners to interpret signs from nature, while court prophets served kings with their insights. In contrast, the Israelites transitioned from these practices as Yahweh's prophets rose to prominence, delivering divine messages directly from God. Meanwhile, priests took on roles that involved interpreting God's will through sacred objects such as the Urim and thummim, effectively replacing the diviners of surrounding nations.Our conversation examines the complexities of distinguishing true prophecy from false, the role of court prophets, and the fascinating interplay between prophetic and wisdom literature. Dr. Witherington also shares his perspective on how the Holy Spirit operates differently in the New Covenant era, emphasizing the importance of discernment in contemporary prophetic practice.Don't miss this thought-provoking discussion that not only enriches our understanding of biblical prophecy but also points us back to the central figure of our faith—Jesus Christ. Whether you're a pastor, teacher, or theology enthusiast, this episode is packed with valuable insights that will deepen your appreciation for the prophetic traditions of the Bible.Jesus the Seer: https://a.co/d/1Ty6jSg

This is part 14 of the Read the Bible For Yourself. The Pastoral Epistles are letters to church leaders, instructing them how churches should function. Though they are not well read by most Christians today, they remain authoritative for pastors, elders, and deacons. Today we'll cover 1-2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. We'll explore the major theme of how the church should be a well-run household where godliness prevails. Additionally, we'll consider qualifications for leadership, warnings against false teachers, and the incredible importance of sound teaching. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-zdww6-Udk&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2TrdUEDtAipF3jy4qYspM_&index=14&t=1004s&pp=iAQB —— Links —— See other episodes in Read the Bible For Yourself Other classes are available here, including How We Got the Bible, which explores the manuscript transmission and translation of the Bible Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— The Pastoral Epistles 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon Philemon is not always included as a pastoral Epistle since it only deals with a specific issue regarding a single person. Household Paul employs the metaphor of a household in the pastorals to illustrate the order he'd like to see in the churches (1 Tim 3:14-15). ZIBBC: “In Xenophon's essay, the husband instructs his fourteen-year-old bride (the average age for marriage among Greek and Roman girls was fourteen to sixteen) on her vital role in managing the household resources, including the care and supervision of household slaves, while he supervised the gathering of produce from the farms. Because of the presence of slaves and freedmen in an average ancient household, management of sometimes large households could be demanding.”[1] Lynn Cohick: “The family in the Greco-Roman world valued the community over the individual and promoted corporate honor and fortune. Those living in the domus (“home”) included parents and children, and perhaps extended family, such as adult siblings, cousins, and grandparents, as well as slaves, freedmen, and freedwomen. Each individual had a specific status within the home, and each family member deemed the social status of the family, including its wealth and social prestige, as of equal or greater value than their personal happiness.”[2] Paul is concerned for how outsiders will perceive the churches (1 Tim 3:7). Everyone has a place and a role. Men's role (1 Tim 2:8), older men (Tit 2:2), younger men (Tit 2:6-8). Women's role (1 Tim 2:9-15), older women (Tit 2:3), younger (Tit 2:4-5) Respect elders (1 Tim 5:1-2, 17-19). Young widows should marry (1 Tim 5:11-15). Take care of your own family (1 Tim 5:7-8, 16). Support real widows (1 Tim 5:3-6, 9-10). Slaves obey & submit (1 Tim 6:2; T 2:9-10) Rich be humble/generous (1 Tim 6:18-19) Godliness (Eusebia) 1 Tim 4:7-8; Tit 2:11-12 (See also 1 Tim 2:1-2; 5:4.) Translated “godliness” but has nothing to do with being like God or imitating God. Showing expected reverence Piety (Latin = pietas) Pious, reverent, dutiful Shown not just to God (or gods) but also to the city and to one's household Church Leadership Overseer's qualifications (1 Tim 3:2-7; T 1:7-9) Elders' qualifications (Tit 1:6) Deacon's qualifications (1 Tim 3:8-13) Standards are high for service in the church. Overseers must manage their own households well (1 Tim 3:4-5). Warnings Against False Teachers Some strange Jewish teachings (1 Tim 1:4, 6-7; Tit 1:10-11, 14) Asceticism (1 Tim 4:1, 3) Proto-gnostics (1 Tim 6:20) Unlabeled false teachings (2 Tim 2:14, 16, 23, 25; Tit 3:9) Warn those who cause divisions (twice), then have nothing more to do with them (Tit 3:10-11) Names individuals: Hymenaeus & Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), Phygelus & Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15), Hymenaeus & Philetus (2 Tim 2:17-18), Alexander the coppersmith (2 Tim 4:14) Sound Teaching (Healthy Doctrine) Sin is when you live contrary to healthy doctrine (ὑγιαινούση διδασκαλία) (1 Tim 1:10). Sound teaching nourishes you (1 Tim 4:6). Encouraged to hold the standard of sound teaching (2 Tim 1:13) “People will not put up with sound teaching” (2 Tim 4:3). “Rebuke them sharply, so that they become sound in the faith” (Tit 1:14). “Teach what is consistent with sound instruction” (Tit 2:1). Reading the Pastoral Epistles Mostly focused on church leadership Church leaders NEED to read them. The pastorals tell us who is qualified and who is disqualified for church leadership. It's good for everyone to know what they say so you can hold your leaders accountable. Philemon Philemon was a wealthy Christian leader who had a house church. His slave, Onesimus, ran away and later became a Christian. Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon, asking Philemon to treat him as a brother. This Epistle is a masterful piece of rhetoric, Paul at his finest. Ben Witherington III calls Philemon the emancipation proclamation of the NT. Review Paul wrote the pastoral Epistles toward the end of his life. The metaphor of a household illustrates how the churches should function. Everyone should play their role according to their duty, whether men or women or elderly or young. Godliness is a major concept in the pastoral Epistles. It refers to performing your duty with proper honor. It's important that Christians live respectfully and with proper dignity before a watching and suspicious world. The pastoral Epistles include clear qualifications for church leaders, including that they manage their own households well. The churches in Ephesus and Crete were beset with false teachers from both Jewish and Greco-Roman sources. Paul encourages Timothy and Titus to adhere to sound teaching (healthy doctrine), so that people will escape the dangers of false teachers. Philemon was a wealthy church leader who managed a household that included slaves. Paul sent Philemon his runaway slave, instructing him to accept Onesimus as a brother. Paul told Philemon to charge any debt Onesimus owed him to his account. Such a request radically reconfigured social norms in a way that undermined the system of slavery. [1]Baugh, S. M. “1 Timothy” in Romans to Philemon, vol. 3 of ZIBBCNT-5, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 444-478. [2] Lynn H. Cohick, "Women, Children, and Families in the Greco-Roman World," in The World of the New Testament, ed. Lee McDonald Joel Green (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 179.

Rebellion in God's council. Spirits of dead giants. Rival gods creating chaos. These are the things of myth and fairy tales, right? The Bible tells a different story. Hosted by Corbin Bernsen and based on the best-selling book by Dr. Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm casts a light on the strange and enigmatic plane of the supernatural that lies within the pages of Scripture. And what we discover are two distinct worlds—with vastly different inhabitants—created and ruled by one loving triune God. Director: Reuben Evans Narrator: Corbin Bernsen Featuring: Dr. Michael Heiser, Dr. Eric Mason, Dr. Darrell Bock, Dr. Ben Witherington III, Dr. Gary Yates --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ndeworld/support

In my conversation with New Testament Professor, Dr. Ben Witherington III, I ask Dr. Witherington about his journey into scholarship, about the decline of biblical literacy in the west and about some of Jesus' teachings on money and the places where Christians struggle to live those teachings out. It was a pleasure to talk Dr. Witherington and I hope now that you are both as challenged and encouraged in your listening to this conversation as I was in having it. Dr. Ben Witherington III is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland. Witherington has also taught at Ashland Theological Seminary, Vanderbilt University, Duke Divinity School and Gordon-Conwell. He has written over sixty books, including The Jesus Quest and The Paul Quest, both of which were selected as top biblical studies works by Christianity Today. He also writes for many church and scholarly publications, and is a frequent contributor to the Patheos website.

Ben Witherington III suggests that churches and Christians are taking their signals and sense of direction from the culture rather than the biblical witness itself. That's why he has written Sola Scriptura, a book that clarifies Scripture as the “final authority in the modern world.” Ben was one of my teachers and has written a commentary on every New Testament book. Baylor University Press calls this a ‘magisterial study' and it is fitting for a scholar like Ben to give the church this volume now. Youtube - https://youtu.be/-pmCyG8YsIMAudio - https://andymilleriii.com/media/podcastApple -  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/more-to-the-story-with-dr-andy-miller/id1569988895?uo=4Check out the book here: https://www.baylorpress.com/9781481320467/sola-scriptura/Here is the video course on Heaven that I released this past summer: courses.andymilleriii.com/p/heavenAnd don't forget about my new book Contender, which is available on Amazon! Five Steps to Deeper Teaching and Preaching - Recently, I updated this PDF document and added a 45-minute teaching video with slides, explaining this tool. It's like a mini-course. If you sign up for my list, I will send this free resource to you. Sign up here - www.AndyMillerIII.com or Five Steps to Deeper Teaching and Preaching. Today's episode is brought to you by these two sponsors: Bill Roberts is a financial advisor, who has been serving the retirement planning and investment needs of individuals, families, non-profits, and churches for 25 years. He is a Certified Financial Planner and accredited investment fiduciary. Bill specializes in working with Salvation Army employees and officers by helping them realize their financial goals.  You can find out more about Bill's business at www.WilliamHRoberts.comANDWesley Biblical Seminary - Interested in going deeper in your faith? Check out our certificate programs, B.A., M.A.s, M.Div., and D.Min degrees. You will study with world-class faculty and the most racially diverse student body in the country. www.wbs.eduThanks too to Phil Laeger for my podcast music. You can find out about Phil's music at https://www.laeger.net

Dr. Ben Witherington III argues passionately against burnishing the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew with unfounded speculation and mistranslations. He gives particular attention to the story of Jesus' birth in Luke 2:7. Prof. Witherington is the Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and is an emeritus professor of New Testament at St. Andrews University, Scotland. He has published widely including commentaries on every book of the New Testament. Two of his books won the Christianity Today annual top biblical studies book award: The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth and The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus. His Biblical Theology; The Convergence of the Canon (Cambridge) won the Prose Prize National Book of the Year award in 2020 for books in religion and philosophy.   Check out related programs at Wheaton College: B.A. in Classical Languages (Greek, Latin, Hebrew): https://bit.ly/3uJzV0i M.A. in Biblical Exegesis: https://bit.ly/3N7ykry

The Apostle Paul's Letter to the Romans has been foundational for Christianity, and well-studied throughout the history of the Church. Ben Witherington, however, gleans fresh insights by reading Paul's epistle in light of early Jewish theology, the historical situation of Rome in the middle of the first century, and Paul's own rhetorical concerns. Join us as we speak with Ben Witherington III about his now classic commentary on Romans: Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2004) Dr. Ben Witherington III is the Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. A prolific author, Ben has written over 60 books, and has led numerous study tours through the lands of the Bible. Michael Morales is Professor of Biblical Studies at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the author of The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus(Peeters, 2012), Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of Leviticus(IVP Academic, 2015), and Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption (IVP Academic, 2020). He can be reached at mmorales@gpts.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The Apostle Paul's Letter to the Romans has been foundational for Christianity, and well-studied throughout the history of the Church. Ben Witherington, however, gleans fresh insights by reading Paul's epistle in light of early Jewish theology, the historical situation of Rome in the middle of the first century, and Paul's own rhetorical concerns. Join us as we speak with Ben Witherington III about his now classic commentary on Romans: Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2004) Dr. Ben Witherington III is the Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. A prolific author, Ben has written over 60 books, and has led numerous study tours through the lands of the Bible. Michael Morales is Professor of Biblical Studies at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the author of The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus(Peeters, 2012), Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of Leviticus(IVP Academic, 2015), and Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption (IVP Academic, 2020). He can be reached at mmorales@gpts.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The Apostle Paul's Letter to the Romans has been foundational for Christianity, and well-studied throughout the history of the Church. Ben Witherington, however, gleans fresh insights by reading Paul's epistle in light of early Jewish theology, the historical situation of Rome in the middle of the first century, and Paul's own rhetorical concerns. Join us as we speak with Ben Witherington III about his now classic commentary on Romans: Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2004) Dr. Ben Witherington III is the Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. A prolific author, Ben has written over 60 books, and has led numerous study tours through the lands of the Bible. Michael Morales is Professor of Biblical Studies at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the author of The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus(Peeters, 2012), Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of Leviticus(IVP Academic, 2015), and Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption (IVP Academic, 2020). He can be reached at mmorales@gpts.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Apostle Paul's Letter to the Romans has been foundational for Christianity, and well-studied throughout the history of the Church. Ben Witherington, however, gleans fresh insights by reading Paul's epistle in light of early Jewish theology, the historical situation of Rome in the middle of the first century, and Paul's own rhetorical concerns. Join us as we speak with Ben Witherington III about his now classic commentary on Romans: Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2004) Dr. Ben Witherington III is the Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. A prolific author, Ben has written over 60 books, and has led numerous study tours through the lands of the Bible. Michael Morales is Professor of Biblical Studies at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the author of The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus(Peeters, 2012), Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of Leviticus(IVP Academic, 2015), and Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption (IVP Academic, 2020). He can be reached at mmorales@gpts.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

The Apostle Paul's Letter to the Romans has been foundational for Christianity, and well-studied throughout the history of the Church. Ben Witherington, however, gleans fresh insights by reading Paul's epistle in light of early Jewish theology, the historical situation of Rome in the middle of the first century, and Paul's own rhetorical concerns. Join us as we speak with Ben Witherington III about his now classic commentary on Romans: Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2004) Dr. Ben Witherington III is the Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. A prolific author, Ben has written over 60 books, and has led numerous study tours through the lands of the Bible. Michael Morales is Professor of Biblical Studies at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the author of The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus(Peeters, 2012), Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of Leviticus(IVP Academic, 2015), and Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption (IVP Academic, 2020). He can be reached at mmorales@gpts.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biblical-studies

The Apostle Paul's Letter to the Romans has been foundational for Christianity, and well-studied throughout the history of the Church. Ben Witherington, however, gleans fresh insights by reading Paul's epistle in light of early Jewish theology, the historical situation of Rome in the middle of the first century, and Paul's own rhetorical concerns. Join us as we speak with Ben Witherington III about his now classic commentary on Romans: Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2004) Dr. Ben Witherington III is the Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. A prolific author, Ben has written over 60 books, and has led numerous study tours through the lands of the Bible. Michael Morales is Professor of Biblical Studies at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and the author of The Tabernacle Pre-Figured: Cosmic Mountain Ideology in Genesis and Exodus(Peeters, 2012), Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?: A Biblical Theology of Leviticus(IVP Academic, 2015), and Exodus Old and New: A Biblical Theology of Redemption (IVP Academic, 2020). He can be reached at mmorales@gpts.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

Host: Brad McNutt  |  Released Monday, October 2, 2023 In this episode of The Book Club, Brad reviews a helpful work on the historical background of the New Testament! Episode Resources Purchase New Testament History: A Narrative Account by Ben Witherington III here. We want to hear from you! Email: books@thelightnetwork.tv Voicemail: 903-26-LIGHT (903-265-4448) Subscription Links  

Host: Brad McNutt  |  Released Monday, October 2, 2023 In this episode of The Book Club, Brad reviews a helpful work on the historical background of the New Testament! Episode Resources Purchase New Testament History: A Narrative Account by Ben Witherington III here. We want to hear from you! Email: books@thelightnetwork.tv Voicemail: 903-26-LIGHT (903-265-4448) Subscription Links  

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas' website.IntroWas Jesus a "carpenter" (Mark 6:3, Matt 13:55)? Tekton = builder. "Carpenter,” esp. in our culture, has a certain prestige. But not so much when someone tells you, “I'm in construction. I'm a manual laborer.”Jesus was more likely a stonemason. Wood is not the usual building material in Palestine – stone is much more common. As a builder he would have worked with others. He also may not have been as well-off as we might think. (After all, consider how few possessions he had at the end of his life.)He was not born into privilege; he had to work for a living. James wasn't wealthy, either. If anything, he stood on the side of the underprivileged.James 2:5-7James urges us not to privilege the rich. Often they are rich only because they are underpaying, entrapping, or otherwise exploiting the poor.Of course not all poor people will be saved, and not all rich people will be condemned.But the Scriptures heavily favor the needy, pity the plight of the poor, and call us all to take responsibility.Irony: cozying up to the very people who are exploiting you!The rich typically use the law to gain wealth, keep it, and make it grow—and keep it away from others.Further:Q&A 1616: “Are James's remains in the church of Santiago de Compostela in Spain?”N.T. Character Study on James, the brother of the Lord.A book on the ossuary of James, by Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story and Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus and His Family (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2003).Next: The Royal LawNote: For days 11-40 of the series, you will need to log in (with username and password), even if you are a paid subscriber. If you are not currently a subscriber, you can sign up here.

On this episode of The Wesleyan Way, Allan interviews Rev. Dr. Ben Witherington III on the phenomenon of religious revival and specifically the 2023 awakening taking place at Asbury University in Wilmore, KY. What is revival? Is it something to take seriously as a movement of the Holy Spirit, or should it be dismissed as emotional hype? Rev. Dr. Ben Witherington III is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland. He is the author of over sixty book and many, many essays and articles. One of his most recent works is Who God Is: Meditations on the Character of Our God. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/allan-r-bevere/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/allan-r-bevere/support

Red Letter sections in the Bible are attributed to the actual words of Christ. In this series, special guests will be teaching on red letter passages about which they are passionate. Today, Bill welcomes special guest Dr. Ben Witherington III for a deep dive into the Beatitudes from Matthew 5. Faith Radio podcasts are made possible by your support. Give now: Click here

New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III joins Charles Morris for a new interview on what Scripture teaches about money. Considering recent food shortages, price hikes, and the looming fear of recession, there may be no better time than now for Christians to consider their relationship with Jesus and their personal finances. Offering sage wisdom and curt biblical advice, Witherington takes a no nonsense approach to building a biblical framework around how Christians should handle their money. For him, it starts with one often neglected truth — your money is not your own, but the Lord's.

Bethlehem holds a central place in the New Testament Gospels as the birthplace of Jesus. For over 1,700 years, the Church of the Nativity has marked the spot where, in tradition, “the Word became flesh.” This opening event for the exhibition, Bells of Bethlehem: Sounds from the Church of the Nativity, features renowned New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III discussing Bethlehem in the first century and how it connects to the Gospels. In addition, George Al Ama, a historian and resident of Bethlehem, will highlight the history and recent renovation of the Church of the Nativity.

One of the great ironies of the Christian religion is that the person Christians worship isn't a Christian. Jesus was born, raised, and died a Jew. He might even find it odd that an entire new religion grew up out of his short life and painful death. He is without question, the most popular person to have ever walked the earth. But what do we really know about this first century Galilean? If we are honest, not much. He was born to humble parents under sketchy circumstances, he grew to become an itinerant preacher and wisdom teacher. The poor loved him, drunks drank with him, and sex workers called him friend. Some believed him a prophet, others thought he was the Messiah. The religious elite saw him as a threat and the Roman Empire eventually murdered him as a political revolutionary. But what cannot be questioned about the historic Jesus is his Jewish identity. He was rooted in first century Judaism. He celebrated the Jewish festivals. He went on pilgrimage to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, he taught in the Synagogue. He was a miracle worker and mystic. If you grew up in the church, Jesus was presented as the first Christian, a man who dedicated his life to dismantling Judaism in route to founding a new religion. But this view is not only historically inaccurate, it fails to account for Jesus' Jewish identity. In this erudite episode, scholar Amy-Jill Levine helps Christians and Jews understand the "Jewishness" of Jesus so that our appreciation of him deepens and a greater interfaith dialogue can take place. Levine's humor and informed truth-telling provokes honest conversation and debate about how Christians and Jews should understand Jesus in the modern world. How have we gotten him right? How have we gotten him wrong? What might we learn about him by remembering and studying his Jewish identity? What would Jesus have believed about hell, sexuality, women, and the Bible in his first century Jewish context?We've all met Jesus before. Or, have we? Meeting Jesus as a first century Jew just might change not only how you see yourself, but your faith tradition as well. BioAmy Jill Levine (“AJ”) is Rabbi Stanley M. Kessler Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies at Hartford International University for Religion and Peace and University Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies Emerita and Mary Jane Werthan Professor of Jewish Studies Emerita, at Vanderbilt. Her publications include The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi; six children's books (with Sandy Sasso); The Gospel of Luke (with Ben Witherington III, the first biblical commentary by a Jew and an Evangelical); The Jewish Annotated New Testament (co-edited with Marc Brettler), The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (with Marc Brettler), The Pharisees (co-edited with Joseph Sievers), and thirteen edited volumes of the Feminist Companions to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Along with Introduction to the Old Testament for the Teaching Company, her Beginner's Guide series for Abingdon Press includes Sermon on the Mount, Light of the World, Entering the Passion of Jesus, The Difficult Words of Jesus, Witness at the Cross, and Signs and Wonders. The first Jew to teach New Testament at Rome's Pontifical Biblical Institute, an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the first winner of the Seelisberg Prize for Jewish-Christian Relations, AJ describes herself as an unorthodox member of an Orthodox synagogue and a Yankee Jewish feminist who works to counter biblical interpretations that exclude and oppress.If you enjoyed this episode, please leave us a rating and a review

Dr. Ben Witherington III discusses Bethlehem, the archeology and geography of the biblical world, and places you should visit to enrich your reading of the Bible.

Marty Solomon and Brent Billings are joined by special guest Dr. Gary Burge, author of Interpreting the Gospel of John, and one of the foremost authorities on John. He was a professor at Wheaton College for 25 years and now serves as a New Testament scholar at Calvin Theological Seminary.Gary M. Burge, Professor of New Testament — Calvin Theological SeminaryInterpreting the Gospel of John by Gary M. BurgeJames Dunn — WikipediaThe Anointed Community by Gary M. BurgeSociety of Biblical LiteratureC. H. Dodd — WikipediaJohn Robinson — WikipediaThe Gospel of John: A Commentary by Rudolf BultmannJohn's Wisdom by Ben Witherington IIIActs: An Exegetical Commentary by Craig S. KeenerThe Gospel of John: A Commentary by Craig S. KeenerThe Historical Reliability of John's Gospel by Craig L. BlombergJesus the Purifier: John's Gospel and the Fourth Quest for the Historical Jesus by Craig L. BlombergJohn: The NIV Application Commentary by Gary M. BurgeThe Letters of John: The NIV Application Commentary by Gary M. BurgeThe New Testament in Antiquity by Gary M. Burge and Gene L. Green“The Fifth Gospel — Interview with Gary Burge” — GTI Tours Podcast #4“Why Context Matters — Interview with Dr. Gary Burge” — GTI Tours Podcast #45Gary Burge's WebsiteBanias Archaeological Dig of 2020 — YouTubeAdditional audio production by Gus Simpson Special Guest: Gary Burge.

"That Still Small Voice" – 1 Kings 19 Sermon by Dr. Ben Witherington III, renowned New Testament scholar and our guest speaker for the 2022 Edmunds Lecture Series, from Sunday, November 6, 2022. 

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas' website.11:1 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent a message to Jesus, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” 4 But when Jesus heard it, he said, “This illness does not lead to death; rather it is for God's glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” 5 Accordingly, though Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, 6 after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.A man is mortally ill. In fact, by the time the messenger arrives, he is already dead.The village of Bethany has been renamed, in honor of Lazarus. Today it is called El-Azariyeh.It is obvious from chapters 11 and 12 that Jesus and Lazarus have a very special relationship.The verb in v.3 is phileîs, not agapâs. In NT Greek, these are virtually synonyms. V.36 contains the same verb: Jesus stayed two more days (v.6) before heading to Bethany. This was not to give Lazarus time to die. The chronology of the passage shows that he was in fact already dead at this time. (Add the extra two-day stay to the two travel days, one for the messenger and one for Jesus.)Jesus rightly foretells that this sickness will not end in death (v.4), but will glorify God. (See 9:3.)Further: Some scholars, such as Ben Witherington III, believe that the disciple whom Jesus loved is none other than Lazarus -- an intriguing possibility.7 Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” 8 The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now trying to stone you, and are you going there again?” 9 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? Those who walk during the day do not stumble, because they see the light of this world. 10 But those who walk at night stumble, because the light is not in them.” 11 After saying this, he told them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I am going there to awaken him.” 12 The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will be all right.” 13 Jesus, however, had been speaking about his death, but they thought that he was referring merely to sleep. 14 Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead. 15 For your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” 16 Thomas, who was called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”Jesus returns (from Galilee) to Judea (v.7ff), to the surprise of his disciples, since there is a bounty on Jesus' head. But Jesus is undeterred. He knows he is following God's timing and besides, Lazarus is his friend.Further: A day has 12 hours (v.9). As the length of the day varied through the seasons, so the length of an hour varied, expanding or contracting so that twelve spanned the hours between sunup and sundown.As usual, the disciples are thinking on "channel 2" (v.12). Jesus, on "channel 1," is referring to death, not physical sleep. Despite the confusion, one cannot help but admire Thomas, who immediately volunteers to accompany Jesus, even though it will lead to death. (In fact, Thomas was more or less correct in his assessment.) Verse 16 is therefore for all readers of this gospel: "Let's go so that we may die with him."Further: If Thomas was a twin (didymos, in Greek), whose twin was he? The most popular suggestion is that he was twin brother of Matthew. Please listen to the podcast on Thomas in the NT Character Study series. Or click on this link for more.17 When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. 18 Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, some two miles away, 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them about their brother. 20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary stayed at home. 21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask of him.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah the Son of God, the one coming into the world.”Jesus arrives at Bethany (v.17ff) and speaks with Lazarus' sisters, beginning with Martha. Many others have come out to mourn.Martha is deeply grieving. Jesus promises that he will rise again (v.23). Once again, she is thinking on a different wavelength. Jesus did not mean he would arise "some day," but now.Jesus is the resurrection and the life (v.25) -- the fifth of seven I am statements.Verse 25 is better translated "will come (back) to life" than "will live."Moreover, in verse 26 Jesus promises life before death! Those who believe will never die. Physical death will be but a brief transition between time and eternity.Martha then confesses her full faith in Jesus as the Messiah (v.27).How amazing that despite his divinity, holiness, fame, and power, Jesus still made friends with this family, appreciating and loving them wholeheartedly.This is the 6th of the 7th confessions of faith in John.28 When she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary, and told her privately, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.” 29 And when she heard it, she got up quickly and went to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet come to the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 31 The Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary get up quickly and go out. They followed her because they thought that she was going to the tomb to weep there. 32 When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. 34 He said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus began to weep. 36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” 37 But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”Having talked with Martha, Jesus now meets Mary, also deep in grief. Many others are weeping, and Jesus is deeply moved. His anger (vv.33,38) was apparently due to the refusal of the crowd to believe that he was the resurrection and the life.He bursts into tears -- tears that seem to have been more for Mary and Martha than for Lazarus. "Burst out weeping" is probably a better translation than "wept" (v.35), since it indicates continuous action.Jesus will now raise Lazarus from the dead (v.38ff).38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”The tomb was a cave (v.38).Caves are abundant in Israel, and made natural and accessible burial sites.To see what a typical first century tomb, click here.Martha objects: "By this time he stinketh" (KJV). That Lazarus had been four days in the tomb shows that he'd been buried on the day of this death -- normal practice at that time.Re: v.39, according to the Genesis Rabbah 100 [64a], "For three days the spirit returns to the tomb. It intends to reinhabit the corpse. But when it sees that the color of the corpses's face has changed, then it goes off and leaves the corpse." Thus Jesus' waiting till after the three-day period lends even greater punch to this miracle.The stone is removed, and Jesus prays. There is no shred of doubt in his mind that Lazarus will be reanimated. The prayer is not simply a request for Lazarus to be raised to life at all; it is uttered only for the sake of the witnesses to this incredible event.Jesus shouts, "Lazarus, come out!" As some preacher said, so powerful is Jesus' words that had he not specified to whom he was talking, everyone who had died would have come out! Lazarus emerges.Lazarus is able to walk (hop?) out of the grave, but still his face has not been seen -- not until he has been unbound.Here is a contrast. Lazarus emerges from the tomb with the graveclothes still wrapped around him. But Jesus would emerge from his grave without the cloth (20:6-7). Whereas Lazarus would still have to return to the grave (dying a second time), Jesus would triumph over death.Always a practical man, Jesus directs that Lazarus be unbound. (What's the point of being raised to life if you've lost all mobility? Is there a lesson somewhere in there for us?)Lazarus has been revivified--but not resurrected.He does not possess a resurrection body.His body does not have the qualities Jesus' will after the Resurrection.Lazarus will die again. He has received a reprieve.Further: Lazarus' face had been wrapped in a separate cloth, as would Jesus' face (20:7). 45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what he had done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, “What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death.Once again, public reaction is divided. The miracle of the raising of Lazarus helped bring many people to faith, but others reported this to the Pharisees. This was not a neutral action -- notice the contrast between these people and those who believed (vv.45-46).The Pharisees in the Sanhedrin (v.47) would have been scribes.The Romans (v.48) had ruled Israel (part of the province of Syria) since 63 BC.The Jewish leaders are alarmed.They are losing influence and control. Too many people like Jesus. Jerusalem isn't big enough for them and Jesus.The Romans (their overlords) might come and remove their "place" (a word often denoting the Temple) and their nation (what little sovereignty the Jews still retained). This is, in fact, exactly what happened some 40 years later, though not because of Christ or the Christians; it was because of revolutionary action.Either way, their power base is in danger -- from beneath as well as from above.Caiaphas, serving as high priest (under the watchful eye of his powerful father-in-law Annas -- see Luke 3:2), suggests that it would be better for them if one man (Jesus) were to die rather than the entire nation being ruined (v.50).Caiaphas was high priest "that year." What does this mean? That auspicious year (30 AD), when our Lord was crucified. Annual rotation -- a new high priest every year. Erratic succession. Pilate's predecessor, Gratus, frequently deposed high priests after only short terms in office. This seems to be the most likely possibility. The bones of Caiaphas were discovered in 1990, examined, and reinterred. His ornate ossuary (the bone box) is on display at the Israel Museum (Jerusalem), though these days it often goes on tour!This was a sort of prophecy of Jesus' atoning death (v.51). Yet the reach of Jesus' death was to be broader than the Jewish nation alone. All God's people, even those outside the Holy Land, would benefit (v.52).Following his lead, the authorities plotted Jesus' death.54 Jesus therefore no longer walked about openly among the Jews, but went from there to a town called Ephraim in the region near the wilderness; and he remained there with the disciples.As a result, Jesus could no longer walk about openly, retreating instead to the village of Ephraim, a safe distance from Jerusalem. From here he and his disciples could see the streams of pilgrims approaching the city.55 Now the Passover of the Jews was near, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves. 56 They were looking for Jesus and were asking one another as they stood in the temple, “What do you think? Surely he will not come to the festival, will he?” 57 Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who knew where Jesus was should let them know, so that they might arrest him.The Passover was near (v.55). This is the third or fourth Passover mentioned in John's gospel.Expectations are running high, and many are eager for Jesus to make an appearance (v.56).To do so is to court danger: both arrest (v.57) and execution.The tension is mounting...Questions for thought:You are a witness to Lazarus' resurrection, and a few days later happen to be at a wealthy friend's house. One of the chief priests, whom you immediately recognize, walks into the room. You humbly introduce yourself, and he wishes you God's peace and asks how things are. You begin relating the phenomenal miracle you have just seen. But the look on the priest's face is not a happy one; he does not seem open to considering the possibility that Jesus is a man from God. What do you do? (Do you finish telling the story, abbreviate it, abruptly break it off, or change the subject? What would be going through your head?)Ideally the Jewish leaders would not have conspired to bring about the death of Jesus. Yet his ministry was a threat to civil order and stability. Do you think compromises of principle are ever allowable, in the interest of the greater public good? Do you agree with the following statement: "The higher up the leader, the more often he will be required to sacrifice principle in order to keep the wheels turning"?If you are a "busy leader," as was Jesus, do you have room in your schedule, and in your heart, for others? Are you emotionally close to your own Marys, Marthas, and Lazaruses?Are my feelings suppressed, or do I experience -- and express -- the full range of human emotion?What does Jesus being the resurrection and the life mean to you?How are the "resurrections" of Jesus (John 20) and Lazarus (John 11) similar? different?How would I have felt as a bystander if I had witnessed Lazarus emerge from the tomb? (Read 12:17 if you're stuck.)

Summer 2022 has been marked by record inflation, intolerable gas prices, and the question of whether or not the US economy is in a recession. With so much uncertainty surrounding finances, this is a good time for Christians to consider their relationship with Jesus and money. This week's episode of the Great Stories Podcast is returning to a 2012 conversation where Charles Morris asked Bible scholar and Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary Dr. Ben Witherington III some hard-to-face questions about money. Questions like:  What should a Christian do with his or her money? What does the Bible say about tithing? What are the myths that Christians believe about money? Whether you have immense wealth or meager means, we pray this conversation will be a great way for you to consider how Jesus would want you to relate to your income, possessions, and the things of this world that moth and rust destroy.

En la primera parte (0-13:55) Tim indica las formas en que Lucas ha mapeado la historia de Pablo usando como base la historia de Jesús. Cita a Charles Talbert. "En Lucas-Hechos encontramos un patrón arquitectónico de correspondencias entre la carrera de Jesús y la vida de los apóstoles. De esta forma, Lucas retrata las obras y enseñanzas de Jesús como patrón para los hechos y la instrucción de la iglesia apostólica en el libro de Hechos. Es casi imposible evitar la conclusión de que esas correspondencias entre Jesús y sus seguidores sirven para este objetivo: Jesús es el maestro y la fuente de la forma de vida cristiana que es imitada por sus discípulos". — Charles Talbert, Literary Patterns and Theological Themes in Luke-Acts (Patrones literarios y temas teológicos en Lucas-Hechos). Tim señala varias formas simbólicas interesantes en que Lucas y Hechos muestran similitud. Por ejemplo, cuando Jesús y Pablo fueron inicialmente a Jerusalén. A ambos los saludan calurosamente y ambos van de inmediato al templo. Tanto Jesús como Pablo comparecen ante alguien llamado Herodes. En ambos casos, se describe de forma positiva a un centurión romano. En la segunda parte (13:55-23:13) Jon pregunta por qué Lucas estaba tan interesado en comparar a Pablo con Jesús. Tim dice que el paralelismo no tiene la intención de disminuir el estatus de Cristo, sino de mostrar que la obra de Cristo continúa en los humanos comunes que ahora están siendo injertados; nuevas criaturas de una nueva humanidad siguiendo el ejemplo y la vida de Cristo. Tim comparte una cita del estudioso Michael Goulder: "Lucas está escribiendo una historia tipológica, la vida de Jesús que es la plantilla para la vida de la iglesia. Es la doctrina paulina del cuerpo de Cristo que encuentra aquí, una expresión literaria en los patrones y ciclos de la narración de Lucas. Cristo está vivo y continúa su propia vida mediante su cuerpo, es decir, su iglesia". — Michael Goulder, Type and History in Acts (Tipo e historia en Hechos) 61-62. En la tercera parte (23:13-final) Jon y Tim hablan sobre la conclusión del libro de Hechos. Para muchos lectores modernos es un final abrupto. Tim comparte sobre el erudito Ben Witherington: "El final del libro de Hechos deja claro que el objetivo de Lucas no era solo escribir una crónica sobre la vida y la muerte de Pablo, sino más bien, sobre el ascenso y la difusión del evangelio y del movimiento social y religioso al que le dio origen". Lucas nos ha dado una historia teológica que le sigue la pista a la difusión de la buena noticia desde Jerusalén hasta Roma, desde el límite oriental del Imperio romano hasta su centro mismo. En la época de Lucas, Roma no era considerada el límite del mundo conocido y por eso el lector sabe muy bien que la misión de Jesús de difundir el evangelio hasta los confines de la tierra (Hechos 1:8) todavía estaba en marcha en su propia época. Sin embargo, para Lucas era crucial y simbólico que el mensaje llegara al corazón y núcleo del imperio, como desafío al César y una puerta a los confines de la tierra. La falta de un final conclusivo que el lector moderno siente al final de Hechos es intencional. Lucas está escribiendo una crónica no de la vida y época de Pablo (ni de ningún otro líder cristiano), lo cual habría tenido una conclusión definida, sino más bien un fenómeno y movimiento que era continuo y estaba vivo en su propia época. Para Lucas, la historia de Pablo es... sobre la imparable palabra de Dios, ningún obstáculo, ningún naufragio, ninguna mordedura de serpiente, ni ninguna autoridad romana puede evitar que llegue al centro del imperio y de los corazones de quienes vivían allá. – Adaptado de Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Los Hechos de los Apóstoles: un comentario socioretórico) (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 809.¡Gracias a todos los que nos apoyan! Recursos: • Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Los Hechos de los apóstoles: un comentario socioretórico) (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 809. • Michael Goulder, Type and History in Acts (Tipo e historia en Hechos) Charles Talbert, Literary Patterns and Theological Themes in Luke-Acts (Patrones literarios y temas teológicos en Lucas-Hechos).Música:• Latin Music por Full Voice Studio (presentando a Braian Quevedo y Bernabé Torres)• Track Production Music - Cine sin copyright• Looney Tunes Track - Porky Eso es todo amigos.• The Fear of God por Beautiful Eulogy• Acquired In Heaven por Beautiful EulogyDesarrollado y distribuido por Simplecast.Producido por Full Voice Studio. Este podcast es una versión localizada del podcast de BibleProject, originalmente grabado por Jon Collins y Tim Mackie. BibleProject es una organización educativa sin fines de lucro, otras obras se utilizan de acuerdo con las leyes de uso justo de los Estados Unidos.

Today I sit down with Dr. Ben Witherington, III, Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. Ben has written over 60 books, numerous articles, he has led several tours to the lands mentioned in the Bible, and has appeared on dozens of television programs on PBS, CNN, and the BBC to discuss topics like Easter, the historical Jesus, and even Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code. I thoroughly enjoyed talking with one of my doctoral professors about a book many Christians don't really know much about, the letter? sermon? homily? to the Hebrews. You can follow Dr. Witherington on his Patheos blog: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/ Dr. Witherington's many academic and popular level books can be found on his Amazon author page: https://www.amazon.com/Ben-Witherington/e/B000AP60HW?ref_=dbs_p_ebk_r00_abau_000000

What's the deal with the Enneagram? Should Christians discover their numbers? Should pastor use it to get to know their teams? Dr. Chris Berg has recently published a book on this subject and I found it to be wonderfully helpful. You can check out that conversation at these links:YouTube - https://youtu.be/OJuXmzOjLBAAudio - https://share.transistor.fm/s/783610f1Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/more-to-the-story-with-dr-andy-miller/id1569988895?uo=4 My friend, Will Adams has written a helpful article on this subject - https://www.williamhadams.com/archives/1890Chris Berg is a professor of Apologetics and Theology at Ecclesia College. His youtube channel, Spirit of Truth Outreach provides courses on theology, Scripture, and apologetics. His new book, The New Age Trojan Horse: What Christians Should Know about Yoga and the Enneagram, can be found here. Also, we have recently updated our archives to include all of my former interviews from the Captain's Corner podcast, there are 50+ interviews there, with people like - Tony and Lauren Dungy, Ben Witherington III, the General of The Salvation Army, Horst Schulze, and many other. https://feeds.transistor.fm/captains-corner-podcast-archives Today's episode is brought to you by two sponsors: Keith Waters and his team at WPO Development do an amazing job helping non-profits and churches through mission planning studies, strategic plans, feasibility studies, and capital campaigns. We are honored to have Keith and WPO on the More to the Story team. You can find out more about them at www.wpodevelopment.comor touch base directly with Keith at Keith.Waters@wpodevelopment.com.AND Bill Roberts is a financial advisor, who has been serving the retirement planning and investment needs of individuals, families, non-profits, and churches for 25 years. He is a Certified Financial Planner and accredited investment fiduciary.  Bill specializes in working with Salvation Army employees and officers by helping them realize their financial goals. You can find out more about Bill's business at www.WilliamHRoberts.com

I have been fascinated by a new approach in family values coming from the organization - Them Before Us. Katy Faust is the founder of that organization that is attempting to put “Children's rights before adult desires.” Katy and her organization are giving voice to children in the debate over family structure. Here are a few links: YouTube - https://youtu.be/xqN--dsoQYUHere is a link to the Them Before Us website - https://thembeforeus.comYou can find Katy's book there. You can find links to Elijah's church here - https://www.thisisfoundry.comAlso, we have recently updated our archives to include all of my former interviews from the Captain's Corner podcast, there are 50+ interviews there, with people like - Tony and Lauren Dungy, Ben Witherington III, the General of The Salvation Army, Horst Schulze, and many other. https://dashboard.transistor.fm/shows/captains-corner-podcast-archives/site/edit Today's episode is brought to you by two sponsors: Keith Waters and his team at WPO Development do an amazing job helping non-profits and churches through mission planning studies, strategic plans, feasibility studies, and capital campaigns. We are honored to have Keith and WPO on the More to the Story team. You can find out more about them at www.wpodevelopment.comor touch base directly with Keith at Keith.Waters@wpodevelopment.com.AND Bill Roberts is a financial advisor, who has been serving the retirement planning and investment needs of individuals, families, non-profits, and churches for 25 years. He is a Certified Financial Planner and accredited investment fiduciary.  Bill specializes in working with Salvation Army employees and officers by helping them realize their financial goals. You can find out more about Bill's business at www.WilliamHRoberts.com

Asbury is pleased to welcome Dr. Ben Witherington III on Sunday. Dr. Witherington taught a class at our Asbury Theological Seminary satellite campus this week. One of his books, “Encounters with Jesus,” is a creative narrative of people who met Jesus (similar to “The Chosen” TV series). It goes behind the plain account of the Gospels and tries to imagine what factors precipitated the crisis of those who met Jesus. Ben will preach from Paul's marvelous text of encouragement to Christians who were suffering persecution. While suffering is part of the faith, Paul reminded the Corinthians of the goodness of God through Jesus. Paul uses startling images: “light out of darkness,” “treasure in jars of clay,” “surpassing power,” and “afflicted.” At the heart of this passage is the vital importance of the resurrection of Jesus. The Resurrection changes everything—including us and our future. Paul warned Timothy that following Jesus was costly: “… indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” (2 Timothy 3:12) He repeatedly emphasized this. However, death (by any means) is not the end of the story. Those who trust in Jesus, the resurrected Lord, also share in His resurrection. Of all the reasons that Asbury's mission is Helping Others Follow Jesus, this one is vitally important. As is said, “Begin with the end in mind.” No matter what else happens in life, our story ends with victory in Jesus

Episode: In this episode Jewish scholar Amy-Jill Levine engages some of the hard words of Jesus that followers then and now have found difficult. He instructs disciples to hate members of their own families (Luke 14:26), to act as if they were slaves (Matthew 20:27), and to sell their belongings and give to the poor (Luke 18:22). He restricts his mission (Matthew 10:6); he speaks of damnation (Matthew 8:12); he calls Jews the devil's children (John 8:44). How did these words sound in their own time, and how might that impact our interpretation of difficult texts? In this episode Biblical World host Lynn Cohick engages these questions with Amy-Jill Levine and her new book The Difficult Words of Jesus: A Beginner's Guide to His Most Perplexing Teachings (Abingdon, 2021).  Guest: Amy-Jill Levine is University Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies, Mary Jane Werthan Professor of Jewish Studies, and  Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt Divinity School, Graduate Department of Religion, and Department of Jewish Studies; she is also Affiliated Professor, Woolf Institute, Centre for the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations, Cambridge UK. Holding a B.A. from Smith College, M.A. and Ph.D. from Duke University, and honorary doctorates from the University of Richmond, the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest, the University of South Carolina-Upstate, Drury University, Christian Theological Seminary, and Franklin College, Professor Levine has been awarded grants from the Mellon Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the American Council of Learned Societies. She has held office in the Society of Biblical Literature, the Catholic Biblical Association, and the Association for Jewish Studies.  She served as Alexander Robertson Fellow (University of Glasgow), and the Catholic Biblical Association Scholar to the Philippines. She has given over 500 lectures on the Bible, Christian-Jewish relations, and Religion, Gender, and Sexuality across the globe. Her books include The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (Publisher's Weekly Best Books of 2007; audio books); Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi (Catholic Book Club; translations: Spanish, Italian; audio books); The Meaning of the Bible: What the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian Old Testament Can Teach Us (with Douglas Knight; translation: Chinese); The New Testament, Methods and Meanings (with Warren Carter); and The Gospel of Luke (with Ben Witherington III -- the first full-length biblical commentary co-authored by a Jew and an Evangelical). Her most recent book is The Bible With and Without Jesus, co-authored with Marc Z. Brettler. With Marc Brettler, she co-edited The Jewish Annotated New Testament; she is also the editor of the 13-volume Feminist Companions to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings, and The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton Readings in Religion; translation: Japanese). Presently she is editing several volumes in the Wisdom Commentary series, and she is the New Testament editor of the new Oxford Biblical Commentary Series. With Joseph Sievers, she is co-editing a collection of essays on the Pharisees. (from the Vanderbilt website) Give: Help support OnScript's Biblical World as we grow and develop. Click HERE.  

In this episode Skyler interview with New Testament scholar Ben Witherington about the origins of the Reformation, Christian origins in America, and theological problem from a rerelease of his book "The Problem with Evangelical Theology." Ben is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. He has althored over 60 books including a commentary on every book in the New Testament.  He brings a wealth of knowledge and wisdom for biblical scholarship and down to earth Christian living. LinksBen Witherington IIIThe Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Wesleyanism, and Pentecostalism, Revised and Expanded Edition 

A quick survey of the key points in Genesis 2-3 that are affected positively by a correct understanding of Genesis 3:16.  Christy and Kaylin interviewed Bruce C. E. Fleming on their podcast about what Genesis 3:16 really says in the Hebrew text and how this helps our understanding of the other verses that tell us what happened back in the Beginning. Lots covered and lots of fun in this interview!Order a 3-Pak of the paperback, The Book of Eden, Genesis 2-3 HEREFor the Kindle version order HEREGO DEEPER

Episode: In this episode, Jason A. Myers and Ben Witherington III will help orient you to some of the major perspectives on Paul within contemporary New Testament scholarship. Tune in for […] The post Ben Witherington III & Jason Myers – Views on Paul first appeared on OnScript.

Episode: In this episode, Jason A. Myers and Ben Witherington III will help orient you to some of the major perspectives on Paul within contemporary New Testament scholarship. Tune in for […] The post Ben Witherington III & Jason Myers – Views on Paul first appeared on OnScript.

During the holiday season, most people think about generosity, taking care of others, and their faith. Money is mentioned quite a bit in the Bible. What can people learn from Jesus about money? In this episode of the Finance For Physicians Podcast, Daniel Wrenne talks to Dr. Ben Witherington III about valuable financial lessons taught by Jesus in the Bible that are still applicable to daily life. Ben is a world-renowned Biblical scholar, author, and speaker. Currently, he is a professor at Asbury Theological Seminary. Topics Discussed: Why was money mentioned in the Bible? World moved from barter to money Dead Presidents vs. Living Rulers: Money was propaganda; sign of oppression Critiques about reasonable, just, and fair uses of money/resources with context Big Picture: God is creator of all things and owner of everything, including money Implications: What would God have you do with money/resources he blesses you Serve Money or God? Who, what, where, how to trust use of money, resources Tax Deductions/Donations: Do’s, don’ts of sacrificial giving vs. financial suicide John Wesley’s The Use of Money Principles: Make all the money you can by honest means Save all you can Give all you can Necessities vs. Luxuries: How much is too much? What’s needed to live simply? Practice What You Preach: Church has obligation to take care of its own, others Unplug and De-enculturate: Maintain values to live fruitful, helpful, meaningful life Parable of Talents: Issue of what you do with what you have—be a good steward What does Jesus want us to do with money? Jesus wants us to invest in others Why be a methodist? Believe in social holiness and motivated by faith Links: Dr. Ben Witherington III Jesus and Money by Dr. Ben Witherington III Asbury Theological Seminary The Use of Money by John Wesley Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger by Ronald Sider Heart, Soul, and Money: A Christian View of Possessions by Craig Blomberg United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Finance For Physicians

Arminianism: With Dr. Ben Witherington III____________________________________________________________________________________Donate (Paypal)https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=GC2Z86XHHG4X6___________________________________________________________________________________Exclusive Content (Patreon)https://www.patreon.com/TheRemnantRadio__________________________________________________________________________________We're social! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRemnantRadioInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/theremnantradio/

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.BackgroundIf you haven't listened to the podcast on Mary & Martha, it might be good to listen to that one before this lesson on Lazarus, as they're integrally related.He lives in Bethany (2 miles from Jerusalem), with his sisters; apparently there are no parents or children living in the home, but this surmise can never be proven.His name, Greek, comes from the Hebrew Eleazar, which means something like "God is my help." (The help the rich man in Luke 16 would not give to Lazarus was lavished on him by the Lord, while the rich man's fortunes were completely reversed. Parable inspiration?)As for Lazarus' character, nothing is known for sure. Yet we can rightly expect that, in terms of personality, there would have been a family resemblance. His sisters were faithful, devoted, giving, and "real." It isn't hard to imagine that Lazarus was a winsome individual; and as a fellow male, Jesus would easily have connected with him.Scriptures read in this podcast:John 11:1,3-4,5-6,11-15,17,33-37,38-41,43-44,45-46John 12:1-2, 9-11, 17-19John 13:23Ephesians 2:1-6Five facts about Lazarus' life The dead man walks out of the tomb (John 11:44).Many come to faith as a result (11:45).The notoriety this miracle accelerates the collision-course Jesus and the religious establishment are on.Why was Jesus so deeply moved at this time? His emotion suggests his humanity (an emphasis in John), though (surely) also his divinity.Was Jesus angry? Find out.Did Jesus wait the extra days to prove beyond all doubt that Lazarus was dead? Is it true that the Jews believed the soul hovered around the body for three days after death? According to later Jewish belief, yes; check out this link or that one. And yet it is uncertain that this view was current in the first century.At dinner, he reclines with Jesus (John 12:2).This is a special dinner, hosted at the Bethany home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus.At ancient meals, people lay around the table on couches (on their left elbow) and ate with their right hand.After his resuscitation, Lazarus becomes, like Jesus, a target (John 12:9-11,17-19).The impact of the miracle is mixed.Some are moved to faith, others are moved to resistance. So it is with our lives!Then Lazarus disappears (or does he? -- see below).He was deeply loved by Jesus (John 11:3,5,11,36). While the Lord loves everyone, not all relationships are the same. This is not a general love, but a very specific one: love for a person as a genuine friend.An intriguing possibilityAbout the disciple Jesus loved, see John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7,20.Note: The Twelve are referred to in chapters 6 and 20, though the apostle John is never designated by name. The closest we come is "son of Zebedee" (21:2)."The disciple whom Jesus loved" makes his appearance at the very point that Lazarus "disappears." Consider the suggestion of N.T. scholar Ben Witherington III. Click here.ApplicationJohn 11:6 -- God loves us, yet still he allows tough things to happen to us. We should never doubt his love, or the relief that will eventually come.When God does great things through us, there will be some who are acutely uncomfortable. (Those among whom the Lord is not doing great things? Those whose influence or reputations is diminished.)We were dead in our sins before we knew Christ (Ephesians 2:1-6). We could no more have raised ourselves up than Lazarus could have brought himself back to life. We are wholly dependent on Christ.God's love for us isn't just platonic, or abstract. The Bible gives every appearance that God feels--that he cares.We should pay attention even to the minor characters in the Bible. Although there may be no character development, still there may be things to learn about God (theology).

In this episode, Jeremy discusses the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus found in Luke 16:19. Sources/references: Luke 16:19 Brad Young, "Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation" Robert Farrar Capon, "The Parables of the Kingdom" Amy-Jill Levine, "The Short Stories by Jesus" Ben Witherington III

Recently an associate of mine asked me about the Parable of the Talents in Matthew's Gospel in chapter 25.  He has some who say that God is teaching us concepts regarding investing our money.  I said I was highly doubtful since once again we need to consider the textual context (the words before and even after the parable) and the historical context.  A highly credible archaeologist, Dr. Ben Witherington III (an American New Testament scholar. Witherington is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, and an ordained pastor in the United Methodist Church), said that TEXT (the words of the Bible) with no CONTEXT (its place in the Bible and the historical setting) is a PRETEXT (a reason to justify one's view) for what we want the words to mean.   Let me repeat that with no commentary - TEXT with no CONTEXT is a PRETEXT for what we want the words to mean.  Thus, no context means you can make up your own meaning.  This is dangerous and is done much to frequently in the church today and in many seminaries who have abandoned the study of the Bible in its historical setting.Jesus taught this parable 2000 years ago to His disciples.  That Jesus ONLY taught His disciples is clear as this parable, and the parable of the Wise and Foolish virgins, is in a section that begins in Chapter 24 of Matthew's Gospel when Jesus was on the Mt. of Olives.  His disciples came to Him and started asking Him about the end times.  The Parable of the Talents is taught to His disciples; it was Jesus and His 12 only.  For those disciples raised in Judaism of Jesus' day they heard this parable in ways that differ with how we look at it as Christians in the 21st century.  Let's return to HEAR what they heard THEN so that we can have the Spirit of the Lord expand our understanding NOW.  Once we do we can then understand that from this parable we should ask daily, in every circumstance, in all situations, מה ישוע היה עושה‎, Mah Yeshua Hayah Osay - what would Jesus do.  Thus, we are like our "rabbi" and thus we are true disciples doing the works He gave us after being saved by grace. (Eph. 2:8-10)Rev. Ferret - who is this guy?  What's his background?  Why should I listen to him?  Check his background at this link - click here for the teacher's background

Special guest preacher, scholar and author, Dr. Ben Witherington III joins us this week in continuation in our sermon series through the book of Revelation, ‘The Last Word.’ Pastor Jason Jackson sits down with Dr. Witherington to answer some timeless questions around Revelation 12, including: Who does the pregnant woman, great fiery red dragon and beast represent? Is 666 a literal number the Church should watch out for or is it figurative? Where did the concept of the rapture come from and what does Scripture teach about Christ’s triumphant return?

We are living in a progressive society. From old ways of living and thinking to new ways, can we be sure this 2,000 year old book is still essential today? What about the cultural gap? How can we know this is still what the Living God has to say to us? If it is still essential, can't we all just be content with living whatever way we want as long as it makes us happy? Today, we are with Dr. Ben Witherington III as he answers these questions along with discussing other related issues. Ben Witherington III is an American New Testament scholar. Witherington is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, and an ordained pastor in the United Methodist Church.Support the show (https://paypal.me/levidade?locale.x=en_US)

Today I'm digging deep into the vault for my 2014 conversation with Ben Witherington III. We explore his fiction works, including the Art West Adventure series and IVP's Week in the Life series.   For additional show notes, visit ShaunTabatt.com/445.   The Shaun Tabatt Show is part of the Destiny Image Podcast Network.

Learn from Dr. Ben Witherington III, Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary. In this session we will explore the actual nature of apocalyptic prophecy in the book of Revelation (and elsewhere in the Bible) and talk about what it does and doesn't tell us about the end times and the return of Christ. Learn more and sign up for the next class today at https://communityofhope.church/hopeuniversity

Having authored more than sixty books and appeared as a frequent guest on major cable and network television programs, Dr. Ben Witherington is one of the most widely read biblical scholars in the world. He has for many years serves as Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky and is an […]

Having authored more than sixty books and appeared as a frequent guest on major cable and network television programs, Dr. Ben Witherington is one of the most widely read biblical scholars in the world. He has for many years serves as Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky and is an […]

Today we sit down with Dr Amy-Jill Levine, professor and world renowned scholar for her work in New Testament Studies. AJ (as she affectionally insists we call her!) is the author of over ten books about Jesus and his Jewish background. AJ brings an authentic knowledge of Judaism in the first century, as well as her own Jewish heritage to inform her writings. In this interview, Mike and Tim converse with AJ all about the essential Jewishness of Jesus and why it matters to an accurate understanding of the text. With wit and humor, AJ dispels some misconceptions about Judaism and how often a good picture of Jesus is built upon a poor view of Judaism. AJ demonstrates how this is not only unnecessary, but calls into question one’s own Christology. If you want to know more about Dr. Levine and her work at Vanderbilt University, please click here: https://divinity.vanderbilt.edu/people/bio/amy-jill-levine Mike and Amy discuss her book, The Jewish Annotated New Testament which can be found here: shorturl.at/jC347 Along with her work written with Ben Witherington III, called “The Gospel of Luke” here: shorturl.at/jx469 In addition, you can find more of her books including children’s stories about the parable of Jesus here: shorturl.at/BDIKN Learn more about the VOX Podcast: www.voxpodcast.com Subscribe on iTunes - apple.co/1Lla1Nj Support the VOX Podcast on Patreon: www.patreon.com/voxpodcast Follow us on Instagram: @voxpodcast Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/voxpodcast Follow Mike on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikeerre Music in this episode by Timothy John Stafford www.timothyjohnstafford.com Instagram & Twitter: @GoneTimothy

Dr. Ben Witherington III is the Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of more than 50 books and six commentaries. Dr. Witherington has led many study tours in the lands of the Bible and gives seminars in churches and colleges around the world on topics related to the New Testament. His visit is sponsored in part by the Abila Archaeological Project at JBU.

There are so many interesting themes in today's four chapters in our daily Bible reading! The way this podcast works, for those that are new, is that I try and choose one big Bible question to discuss for each daily episode, and then one spiritually encouraging passage from a spiritual giant. My own personal goal is to try and make MOST of the shows under 30 minutes, though on deep topics that doesn't always happen. We are 15 episodes into the podcast, and I can tell you honestly that there has never been a day where I have had to really dig deep to find a topic worth talking about. In fact, almost every day, the opposite is true. There are a dozen great things to talk about in each day's reading, and I can only choose one. Today, more so than almost any day prior to this, we have many great topics and themes to choose from. Should we talk about the rich and powerful abusing the families and poor people in Nehemiah? Should we talk about how honorable Nehemiah was, in that he did not take advantage of all of the luxuries offered to him because he was mindful of the plight of his people? Should we talk about Sarai's shameful mistreatment of her servant Hagar, and how the Angel of the Lord intervened and saved the life of Ishmael, the ancestral father of the Islamic people? (Could this early mistreatment explain some of the enmity between the Jewish and Arabic peoples?!) Should we instead talk about how the Pharisees amplified their own human traditions, and presented them as of more importance than the actual commands of God? (I almost went with this one, because the church today still has this problem in a large measure.) All of the above would be excellent topics to consider; ultimately, however, I believe the big question we should discuss today is the same one the early church met about during the first churchwide council in Acts 15 - How much of the Old Testament are Gentiles like me and most of you bound to follow? Before we dive into our main question today, let me say this one MASSIVE caveat: My view on this question could be very wrong. I have been in ministry for well over 25 years. I have been a student of the Bible for a long time. I have wrestled with this particular question for over a decade, and it makes me tremble. I believe that the answer I'm going to give is the proper answer biblically, but there are many, many mighty men of God whom I respect and admire tremendously that do not agree with me. Do NOT take my word on this issue as authoritative. The majority of you listeners don't know me personally, and even if you do - this is a question that you should be wrestling with in the Scripture and in prayer. All that said - and I hope it wasn't virtue signalling, but rather a warning to do your own scriptural due diligence - I believe that Christians are NOT under the Old Testament/Old Covenant commands, but are rather under the New Testament/New Covenant commands. By this I mean that I believe that the council of the apostles in Acts 15 decided this very issue and concluded that all Gentile Christians (followers of Jesus not born into ethnic Israeli families) are under New Testament commands AND the following four commands: Do not consume food that you know was offered to idols before or during its preparation. Do not consume blood. Do not eat anything that was strangled to death Do not engage in sexual immorality as defined in the Bible. Items 1-3 all seem to be quite connected to separating Christians from the pagan practices of food preparation throughout the Roman empire. Commenting on those passages, Ben Witherington says: "Also relevant to our discussion is the evidence that the choking of the sacrifice, strangling it, and drinking or tasting of blood transpired in pagan temples. In regard to the former, we have evidence from the magical papyri of the attempt to choke the sacrifice and in essence transfer its life breath or spiritual vitality into the idol, and in regard to the latter R. M. Oglivie points to the practice, mentioned occasionally in the literature, of the priest tasting the blood of the sacrifice. The singular reference to blood at the end of the decree would be superfluous after the reference to abstaining from things strangled or choked if the meaning was to avoid meat with the blood still in it. It is more likely that each item in the decree should be taken separately and all be seen as referring to four different activities that were known or believed to transpire in pagan temples." Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 464. So - I believe these commands are still binding on Christians today. We must not knowingly eat food that was prepared according to pagan practices (though see Paul's discussions of this in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians) and we must abstain from sexual immorality. Beyond that, we are no longer under the commands of the Old Testament, but the commands of the New Testament. Does that mean we are free from Ten Commandments? It does not, because 9 of the Ten Commandments are still commanded in the New Testament/Covenant. I need to stress here that I am not at all what is known as an antinomian. I do believe that Christians are still under God's (New Testament) commands, and we must follow them. I believe that the Old Testament is still the Word of God, and we must NOT seek to be unhitched from it - but New Testament Christians are no longer under law, but under the grace of the New Covenant. Thomas Schreiner captures this quite well in his Gospel Coalition article: "Saying that the old covenant has passed away doesn't mean the Old Testament is no longer (or somehow less) the Word of God. All of the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, are the final authority as God's infallible and inerrant word. All of the Old Testament has a revelatory and pedagogical authority for believers in Jesus Christ. We must interpret the Old Testament in terms of God's progressive revelation in his covenants in order to discern how to apply it today. New Testament writers don't decide how to apply the Old Testament based on the moral, ceremonial, and civil divisions, where the moral law continues to function as a moral norm. Such categories are actually quite useful, and there is significant truth in such divisions, but the New Testament itself doesn't apply the Old Testament law to believers based on these categories. Doing so can introduce distortions when applying the Old Testament to our lives." https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/old-covenant-response-andy-stanley/ Here are some Scriptures to consider in asking the question: Are we under the Old Testament? Consider these Scriptures, and then go read them in their wider context! Romans 6:14-15  14 For sin will not rule over you, because you are not under law but under grace….15 What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Absolutely not! Romans 7:6 6 But now we have been released from the law, since we have died to what held us, so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old letter of the law. Ephesians 2:15 15 He made of no effect the law consisting of commands and expressed in regulations Galatians 3: 24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. 25 But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 5: 5 Christ has liberated us to be free. Stand firm then and don't submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Take note! I, Paul, tell you that if you get yourselves circumcised, Christ will not benefit you at all. 3 Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to keep the entire law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law are alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace...vs 18  18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. And finally, and perhaps MOST importantly: Hebrews 7 11 If then, perfection came through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to appear, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of law as well….18 So the previous command is annulled because it was weak and unprofitable 19 (for the law perfected nothing), but a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. We will discuss some other more specific issues - like the Sabbath - at a later date.

There are so many interesting themes in today's four chapters in our daily Bible reading! The way this podcast works, for those that are new, is that I try and choose one big Bible question to discuss for each daily episode, and then one spiritually encouraging passage from a spiritual giant. My own personal goal is to try and make MOST of the shows under 30 minutes, though on deep topics that doesn't always happen. We are 15 episodes into the podcast, and I can tell you honestly that there has never been a day where I have had to really dig deep to find a topic worth talking about. In fact, almost every day, the opposite is true. There are a dozen great things to talk about in each day's reading, and I can only choose one. Today, more so than almost any day prior to this, we have many great topics and themes to choose from. Should we talk about the rich and powerful abusing the families and poor people in Nehemiah? Should we talk about how honorable Nehemiah was, in that he did not take advantage of all of the luxuries offered to him because he was mindful of the plight of his people? Should we talk about Sarai's shameful mistreatment of her servant Hagar, and how the Angel of the Lord intervened and saved the life of Ishmael, the ancestral father of the Islamic people? (Could this early mistreatment explain some of the enmity between the Jewish and Arabic peoples?!) Should we instead talk about how the Pharisees amplified their own human traditions, and presented them as of more importance than the actual commands of God? (I almost went with this one, because the church today still has this problem in a large measure.) All of the above would be excellent topics to consider; ultimately, however, I believe the big question we should discuss today is the same one the early church met about during the first churchwide council in Acts 15 - How much of the Old Testament are Gentiles like me and most of you bound to follow? Before we dive into our main question today, let me say this one MASSIVE caveat: My view on this question could be very wrong. I have been in ministry for well over 25 years. I have been a student of the Bible for a long time. I have wrestled with this particular question for over a decade, and it makes me tremble. I believe that the answer I'm going to give is the proper answer biblically, but there are many, many mighty men of God whom I respect and admire tremendously that do not agree with me. Do NOT take my word on this issue as authoritative. The majority of you listeners don't know me personally, and even if you do - this is a question that you should be wrestling with in the Scripture and in prayer. All that said - and I hope it wasn't virtue signalling, but rather a warning to do your own scriptural due diligence - I believe that Christians are NOT under the Old Testament/Old Covenant commands, but are rather under the New Testament/New Covenant commands. By this I mean that I believe that the council of the apostles in Acts 15 decided this very issue and concluded that all Gentile Christians (followers of Jesus not born into ethnic Israeli families) are under New Testament commands AND the following four commands: Do not consume food that you know was offered to idols before or during its preparation. Do not consume blood. Do not eat anything that was strangled to death Do not engage in sexual immorality as defined in the Bible. Items 1-3 all seem to be quite connected to separating Christians from the pagan practices of food preparation throughout the Roman empire. Commenting on those passages, Ben Witherington says: "Also relevant to our discussion is the evidence that the choking of the sacrifice, strangling it, and drinking or tasting of blood transpired in pagan temples. In regard to the former, we have evidence from the magical papyri of the attempt to choke the sacrifice and in essence transfer its life breath or spiritual vitality into the idol, and in regard to the latter R. M. Oglivie points to the practice, mentioned occasionally in the literature, of the priest tasting the blood of the sacrifice. The singular reference to blood at the end of the decree would be superfluous after the reference to abstaining from things strangled or choked if the meaning was to avoid meat with the blood still in it. It is more likely that each item in the decree should be taken separately and all be seen as referring to four different activities that were known or believed to transpire in pagan temples." Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 464. So - I believe these commands are still binding on Christians today. We must not knowingly eat food that was prepared according to pagan practices (though see Paul's discussions of this in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians) and we must abstain from sexual immorality. Beyond that, we are no longer under the commands of the Old Testament, but the commands of the New Testament. Does that mean we are free from Ten Commandments? It does not, because 9 of the Ten Commandments are still commanded in the New Testament/Covenant. I need to stress here that I am not at all what is known as an antinomian. I do believe that Christians are still under God's (New Testament) commands, and we must follow them. I believe that the Old Testament is still the Word of God, and we must NOT seek to be unhitched from it - but New Testament Christians are no longer under law, but under the grace of the New Covenant. Thomas Schreiner captures this quite well in his Gospel Coalition article: "Saying that the old covenant has passed away doesn't mean the Old Testament is no longer (or somehow less) the Word of God. All of the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, are the final authority as God's infallible and inerrant word. All of the Old Testament has a revelatory and pedagogical authority for believers in Jesus Christ. We must interpret the Old Testament in terms of God's progressive revelation in his covenants in order to discern how to apply it today. New Testament writers don't decide how to apply the Old Testament based on the moral, ceremonial, and civil divisions, where the moral law continues to function as a moral norm. Such categories are actually quite useful, and there is significant truth in such divisions, but the New Testament itself doesn't apply the Old Testament law to believers based on these categories. Doing so can introduce distortions when applying the Old Testament to our lives." https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/old-covenant-response-andy-stanley/ Here are some Scriptures to consider in asking the question: Are we under the Old Testament? Consider these Scriptures, and then go read them in their wider context! Romans 6:14-15  14 For sin will not rule over you, because you are not under law but under grace….15 What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Absolutely not! Romans 7:6 6 But now we have been released from the law, since we have died to what held us, so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old letter of the law. Ephesians 2:15 15 He made of no effect the law consisting of commands and expressed in regulations Galatians 3: 24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. 25 But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 5: 5 Christ has liberated us to be free. Stand firm then and don't submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Take note! I, Paul, tell you that if you get yourselves circumcised, Christ will not benefit you at all. 3 Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to keep the entire law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law are alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace...vs 18  18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. And finally, and perhaps MOST importantly: Hebrews 7 11 If then, perfection came through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to appear, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of law as well….18 So the previous command is annulled because it was weak and unprofitable 19 (for the law perfected nothing), but a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. We will discuss some other more specific issues - like the Sabbath - at a later date.

Brandon and I discussed the issues surrounding the reception of wisdom traditions in the ancient and modern worlds. Brandon referred to a book exploring how the NT understands Jesus to be the embodiment of wisdom. Its by Ben Witherington III. The full title is “Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom” (Fortress, 2000).

How a not-neat Bible maps onto our not-neat lives.  --- "A text without a context is a pretext for whatever you want it to mean. When you do the chicken nugget thing and excerpt a verse, or a half a verse, or two verses, or three verses from its original context and don’t bother to try to find out what it meant in its original context - guess what, you are bound to twist that text.”  What happens when you read the Bible wrong? What happens when you read it right?  In the second part of this conversation about the best-selling book of all time, Bible scholars Darrell Bock and Ben Witherington III talk about some of the challenges of reading this text - and a few epic interpretative fails - and how it has helped them navigate the highs and lows of life, including the birth and death of a daughter.  “You look at life at the back side of a tapestry, and normally what we see is loose threads and knots. But occasionally the light shines through the tapestry and we see God’s larger design weaving together the darks and the lights of life.”  --- Books mentioned in this episode: Ben Witherington and Ann Witherington, When a Daughter Dies: Walking the way of grace in the midst of our grief Ben Witherington III, Reading and Understanding the Bible Darrell Bock, Can I Trust the Bible?

Genesis 2:4-25 "A text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean." Ben Witherington III

Lisa talks with Bible teacher, wife, mom, and author Kat Armstrong about her new book, "No More Holding Back: Emboldening Women to Move Past Barriers, See Their Worth, and Serve God Everywhere". This is a conversation you don't want to miss as Kat and Lisa talk about the dangers of elevating any role above that of simply Jesus Follower.   Links: katarmstrong.com No More Holding Back Curl cream Ben Witherington III commentary on Mark   Learn more about Lisa at LisaWhittle.com Produced by Unmutable™

Derry member Bob Hanna concludes a discussion on a commentary co-authored by New Testament scholars Amy-Jill Levine, a practicing Jew, and Ben Witherington III, an Evangelical Methodist. Part 1 was presented on April 14, 2019.This lecture was presented on Sunday morning, May 12, 2019 at Derry Presbyterian Church, Hershey, PA • 64 minutes • 21 MB

Ben Witherington lll New Testament author, lecturer and professor Ben Witherington lll refers to himself as a whole brain Christian because he works to feed both the intellectual and emotional sides of his brain. He believes this allows for a balanced view of his worship of the Lord.Website: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/ Ben Witherington III is an American New Testament scholar and Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is also an ordained pastor in the United Methodist Church. Ben has written over fifty books including, The Jesus Quest and The Paul Quest, both of which were chosen as top biblical studies by Christianity Today. He has made many appearances on radio and television programs, and has been featured on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, and other major networks.

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

Ben Witherington III discusses theology with Michael Luna. *. This was recorded live during a Tactical Faith fellowship event. We apologize for the background noise.

Listen to Transfigured: A Vision of Worship by Ben Witherington III.

What is the central thing for the Church? There are so many things that inevitably work to splinter the Church. However, if the Church intentionally roots itself in the central things such as the Gospel of Jesus, then not even divisive issues such as an election can divide the Church. Scot gives a vision for how to keep the central things central while adopting and adapting implications from the Gospel to the culture in which the Church exists. Suggested Resources: Books: The King Jesus Gospel by Scot McKnight (http://goo.gl/ARF03V) New Horizons in Hermeneutics by Anthony Thiselton (http://goo.gl/5Oud8G) NT Blogs: Scot McKnight (Jesus Creed) - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/ Ben Witherington III - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/ Larry Hurtado - https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com OT Blog: Claude Mariottini - https://claudemariottini.com Magazines: Relevant Magazine - http://www.relevantmagazine.com Christianity Today - http://www.christianitytoday.com Interested in learning more about Northern? Attend Northern’s Open House online through Northern Live or in person on Tuesday, Novemeber 15 at 6pm CST. Learn more and register at http://www.seminary.edu/news/oh16/

The Book Club Season 4, Episode 3 for Monday, August 22, 2016 On this episode of The Book Club, Brad introduces a new author (Ben Witherington III) and his book “A Week in the Life of Corinth.”  Links Click here for all episodes of The Book Club Your Feedback Email: books@thelightnetwork.tv Voicemail: 903-26-LIGHT (903-265-4448) If you enjoyed […]

Dr. Ben Witherington III, Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary, joins me to discuss social history, who wrote the Fourth Gospel, and how we celebrate the ceremony of the Lord's Supper.

What are the origins of Halloween? Halloween is a contraction of "All Hallows' Eve," which is also known as "All Saints' Eve." As with other holidays, Halloween seems to have a mixture of both pagan and Christian origins. It is a testimony to the uneasy relationship that church tradition has often had with the culture it meets and then inhabits. Listen to this Seven Minute Seminary from Ben Witherington III suggesting ways we can engage with culture at this critical holiday.

10/07/2015 - Transfixed: An Image of Worship by Ben Witherington III

Ben Witherington III explains that Rapture theology and its parent, Dispensationalism, are new ideas that were birthed in 19th century. He continues to work through the history of the belief and explains how it became a popular movement in the United States.

A lecture on the quest for the historical Jesus by Ben Witherington III, an American New Testament scholar. Witherington is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, and an ordained pastor in the United Methodist Church.

A lecture on how the historical Jesus would have seen himself: divine, human, both? Delivered by Dr. Ben Witherington III, New Testament scholar and professor at Asbury University.

A lecture on St. Paul by Ben Witherington III, professor at Asbury University and New Testament scholar.

Matthew and Luke both tell the story of the birth of Jesus Christ. The stories share some details in common but also vary in others.  Where did they get their information from, and should we regard them as historical or merely "theological"? Stephen Thornton is a liberal Bible tutor who believes that none of the details of the Christmas story are historically true. Rather, stories of the virgin conception, the shepherds, the wise men etc contain "deeper meanings" that were written down as a "teaching aid" to the early church. Ben Witherington III is New Testament professor at Asbury Theological Seminary.  He says that the Christmas stories certainly contain deep meaning, but only because they have a basis in historical events, and that Stephen's approach is out of date. For Ben Witherington www.benwitherington.com You can email Stephen Thornton smthornton@ntlworld.com Watch the video promo for Unbelievable? the Conference 2012 DVD http://youtu.be/6g-5jTMeZew Order it at http://www.premier.org.uk/dvd For more Christian/non-Christian debate visit http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable or get the MP3 podcast http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx or Via Itunes You may also enjoy: Unbelievable? 9th January 2012 - Is there scientific evidence for the star of Bethlehem? Hugh Ross, Jeff Zweerink, Mark Kidger and Norman Bacrac Unbelievable? 22 Dec 2007 - Did Christians steal Christmas? Did Christians steal Christmas? Join the conversation: http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable and via Facebook and Twitter

Dr. Ben Witherington III offers us an introduction to the book of Romans, highlighting key points of background history that are important to keep in mind as we read the letter.

Ben Witherington III here shares his reasons for not subscribing to Calvinist theology.

Dr. Ben Witherington III discusses why he considers the Wesleyan understanding of the gospel to be most faithful to Scripture.

October 11, 2012 - Ryan Lectureship: The Imago Dei by Ben Witherington III

October 11, 2012 - Ryan Lectureship: The Imago Dei by Ben Witherington III

Did Jesus have a wife? What makes some people think this is a historical possibility? Dr. Ben Witherington III here addresses these sorts of questions in light of recent archaeological evidence.

World renowned scholar, Dr. Ben Witherington III, discusses homosexuality and Scripture. How should the Church deal with this difficult topic? Dr. Witherington explains a biblical focus on behavior rather than inclinations or orientation.