Podcasts about Septuagint

A @Christadelphians Video: [Inspiring] **Ai Summary** – Thought-provoking, insightful, and wonderfully expositional, this outstanding episode of *The Bible Standard* reveals why humility is essential when wrestling with Scripture's most puzzling passages. We, as Christadelphians, explore the strange case of King Saul's age—does the Hebrew really say he was one year old?—and the textual twists behind Lamentations 3: “we are not consumed.” We also dive into the cutting‑edge debate over Greek verbs: do they really tell us *when* something happened, or just *how* the author saw it? This is a wonderfully revealing journey into the “things we still don't know,” reminding us that following God is a process of continual learning, not stagnant certainty.**

Gary answers a listener question about a Greek word used in Matthew 25:5, Hebrews 10:37, and in the Septuagint in Habakkuk 2:3. The NT often uses OT language to show that similar events are soon to pass in the first century. Israel's history often feels like a series of cyclical events and Paul even mentions that these events happened as "examples" to his generation, "on whom the end of the ages has come" (1 Corinthians 10:11).

Government pilots are reporting objects that accelerate without propulsion, vanish into the ocean, and move between dimensions like they don't belong to our physics. What's strange is that an ancient Hebrew manuscript described the exact same behavior, and named the beings responsible, listed their leader, and recorded the location where they entered our world. What if the UFO phenomenon was never a mystery — just a memory we forgot how to read? In this episode, Lance Wallnau connects the dots between today's UAP disclosure and Genesis 6 — drawing on the scholarship of the late Michael Heiser, the Book of Enoch, and the Septuagint to reveal what the first-century church already understood about interdimensional beings, the Watchers, and the Nephilim. And the detail that will stop you cold: Jesus didn't randomly choose a mountain for the Transfiguration. He went to the exact peak where 200 angels swore their oath — and reversed what they did there. In this episode:

Did the biblical authors believe in a divine council of heavenly beings surrounding God? In this episode, Dru Johnson sits down with Hebrew Bible scholar Jamie Duguid to unpack one of the most controversial debates in modern biblical scholarship: the meaning of “sons of God” in Deuteronomy 32 and the growing influence of Michael Heiser's Divine Council worldview. The conversation explores the Hebrew phrase bene elohim, the Divine Council interpretation of Deuteronomy 32:8, and whether the Bible presents Yahweh as ruling among other divine beings. Duguid and Johnson examine the textual evidence behind the debate, including the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac translations, and Isaiah 40–55. They also discuss Genesis 6, Psalm 82, angels, demons, ancient Near Eastern religion, monotheism vs. henotheism, and why the Divine Council framework has become so influential through scholars like Heiser. If you've wondered whether the Bible teaches the existence of other gods, spiritual powers, or a heavenly council, this episode offers a careful, scholarly, and deeply accessible exploration of one of the Bible's most fascinating theological questions.   Read more of Dr. Duguid's work here: https://www.quaerendum.com/   We are listener supported. Give to the cause here: https://hebraicthought.org/give For more articles: https://thebiblicalmind.org/ Social Links: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HebraicThought Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/hebraicthought Threads: https://www.threads.net/hebraicthought X: https://www.twitter.com/HebraicThought Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hebraicthought.org Chapters: 00:00 Introduction to the Divine Council Debate 07:14 Understanding Elohim and Divine Beings 13:22 The Role of the Divine Council in Scripture 18:52 The Importance of the Masoretic Text 24:55 Exploring Alternative Texts: Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch 31:04 The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls on Biblical Texts 33:21 Exploring the Dead Sea Scrolls 35:39 Textual Variations in Biblical Manuscripts 40:11 Theological Implications of Textual Differences 45:18 Assessing the Nature of Divine Beings 51:57 Reconceptualizing Godhood in Scripture 56:57 Critiques and Responses to Heiser's Work  

In this episode, we welcome biblical scholar and protestant convert Dr. Matthew Thomas to discuss the essential role of the Catholic Church in compiling the canon of Scripture, primarily the Old Testament.Dr. Thomas wrote the fantastic introductory essay on the canon of Scripture in the recently published Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: Old and New Testaments, edited by Dr. Scott Hahn and Dr. Curtis Mitch.This is episode 73 in honor of the 73 books of Holy Scripture!Dr. Thomas is the Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, and the Theology Department Chair at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkley, CA. You can read more of his bio here: https://dspt.edu/matthew-thomas/VISIT OUR WEBSITEhttps://eternalchristendom.com/BECOME A PATRON OF THE GREAT TRADITIONAs a non-profit, you can support our mission with a tax-deductible gift. Help us continue to dig into the Great Tradition; produce beautiful, substantive content; and gift these treasures to cultural orphans around the world for free: https://eternalchristendom.com/become-a-patron/CONNECT ON SOCIAL MEDIAX: https://twitter.com/JoshuaTCharlesFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/joshuatcharles/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/joshuatcharles/DIVE DEEPERCheck out our “Becoming Catholic” resources, where you'll find 1 million+ words of free content (bigger than the Bible!) in the form of Articles, Quote Archives, and Study Banks to help you become, remain, and deepen your life as a Catholic: https://eternalchristendom.com/becoming-catholic/SUBSTACKSubscribe to our Substack to get regular updates on our content, and other premium content: https://eternalchristendom.substack.com/EXCLUSIVE BOOKSTORE DISCOUNTShttps://eternalchristendom.com/bookstore/CHAPTERS00:00 - Introduction04:23 - Scripture, Church Authority, and the Canon15:57 - Development of Doctrine and the Canon28:06 - Old Testament Canon52:37 - Florence, Trent, and the Church's Definitive Canon01:05:23 - Jewish Canon Traditions, the Septuagint, and the Temple01:42:18 - How the Apostles Used the Old Testament in the New Testament01:48:56 - Patristic Evidence: Fathers, Codices, Canon Lists, and St. Jerome02:03:36 - New Testament Canon, Rule of Faith, and Final TakeawaysThis podcast can also be heard on Apple, Spotify, and other podcast platforms.

The Bible we hold is a translation of ancient manuscripts. But does that gap between the original autographs and our English Bibles introduce error we should be worried about? In Lesson 27 of Christian Ethics and the Old Testament, Dave Rich works through the transmission and translation of Scripture—and makes the case that we have every reason for confidence.Rich opens with the logic: reliable manuscripts plus faithful translation equals God's Word in English. Either piece can fail, and he walks through what happens when it does. From there he examines the manuscript evidence for the Old Testament—the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint—showing that agreement across those sources is remarkably stable. The one significant variant, Psalm 22:16, turns out to have strong textual support for "they pierced my hands and feet," consistent with its unmistakably messianic context.New Testament transmission is even more extensively attested—over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, with 99.5% of the text determinable from existing evidence. Rich walks through the nature of the variants honestly, showing that the most significant ones are well known, clearly marked in modern translations, and doctrinally non-threatening.The lesson closes with a survey of English translations across a spectrum from highly literal to outright corrupt: the YLT, NASB, LSB, ESV, NIV, New Living, and then the Message, the New World Translation, the Passion Translation, and several others that distort the text to serve a theological agenda.God had a purpose in giving His Word, Rich argues, and that same providence extends to its transmission and translation into every language. ★ Support this podcast ★

Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna says what she saw in classified UFO briefings looks "stunningly similar" to events in the Bible — and she's pointing pastors to the Book of Enoch. Then nine Pentecostal broadcasters were quietly gathered in a Tennessee Airbnb. Now Glenn Beck is asking what happens to the church if a lizard pilot is pulled out of Los Alamos. Why are they prepping pastors — not Catholics, not Muslims, not Hindus — right before disclosure? Lance Wallnau pulls back the curtain on the UFO disclosure story the mainstream won't touch — bringing in Chuck Missler, Jude 6, Genesis 6, and the watchers of Enoch to expose what these "interdimensional beings" really are. What if disclosure isn't about aliens at all — but about something the Bible warned us about 4,000 years ago? In this episode: - Why Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna keeps urging the public to read the Book of Enoch - The classified briefings she says mirror "events in biblical times" - The Tennessee NRB meeting where Pentecostal pastors were briefed by men with government exposure — and what was actually said behind closed doors - Glenn Beck on the "lizard people in Los Alamos" theory and the disclosure the church may not be ready for - The Mirage Men documentary claim that the human race was "manufactured" by extraterrestrials — and the spiritual deception hiding inside it - Chuck Missler's teaching on the sons of God, the Nephilim, and the Septuagint translation that changes everything - 1 Peter 3:18, Jude 1:6, and the imprisoned spirits Jesus proclaimed judgment over - The fourth-dimension "finger through a box" theory of UAPs — and why these craft may not be ships at all - How the Jezebel spirit, false prophets, and end-time witchcraft tie into the coming great seduction With disclosure beginning, the question isn't whether it's real — it's whether the church will recognize it for what it is. Podcast Episode 2113: Trump's UFO Disclosure Just Took a TURN Nobody Saw Coming | don't miss this! Listen to more episodes of the Lance Wallnau Show at lancewallnau.com/podcast

The natural motherhood of Mary, historicity of the Church, the Septuagint and more on Open Line Friday with Colin Donovan.

Exodus Lesson 71 Part 1 In Hebrew Genesis 2:3 has a unique Hebrew grammatical construction only found here in chapter 2 verse 3.  The Hebrew translated direct from the Hebrew is that “God ceased from creating all his work that God created TO DO.”  This seems to suggest that the Lord stopped creating work to be accomplished in the future work.  Hebrew scholars such as Ibn Ezra (1092-1167 A.D.) and Radak (1160-1235 A.D.), noted that the Hebrew phrase that God created a world that was complete in its foundation but designed to have its full potential realized through time, partly through the stewardship of humanity. In other words it seems possible that God has created work for the future for Himself, His people like Moses, David, Isaiah, and of course Jesus and US!!  It is a very interesting valid alternative translation of Gen. 2:3.  (See “JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis.  Nahum Sarna.  © 1989.  The Jewish Publication Society.  Jerusalem, Philadelphia, and New York) Ask many Christians today how they are saved and they would tell you they are saved by GRACE and not by WORKS.  They are right.  This is the very words of God found in Eph. 2:8-9.  But, what we miss is this is a Jewish concept and understood quite clearly among religious Jews in Jesus' day.  Consider the Hebrew words Chen (grace/favor) and Chesed (lovingkindness) which represent God's unmerited favor and mercy shown to individuals and the nation, rather than just earning salvation through works. Hebrew Origins: The concept of grace (chen - found 69 times in the Tanakh) emphasizes God's unmerited favor, such as when Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Grace is then connected to Torah often expressed in Judaism as "saved by grace, led by Torah," or God's instruction and not law.  It is seen as a gift that frees individuals to walk in God's ways out of love, not just for merit.  Here's a number of websites to check it out and go deeper in your understanding and study. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/2013/05/21/rescuing-grace/ https://hoshanarabbah.org/blog/2016/02/26/concept-of-grace/ https://free.messianicbible.com/feature/grace-enough/ In this podcast we will study Eph. 2:10.  The verse that most Christians forget.  They stop at verse 9 when they quote Eph. 2:8-9.  They tell us that works don't matter.  But, they do not read THE VERY WORDS OF GOD in verse 10.  We are sved by grace not by works to then become God's workmanship to do good WORKS!!  Thus, the Lord is telling us, the mark of a true Christian is once they are saved they do work given to them by the Father.  Works God created for us in Gen. 2:3.   Many of our Bibles say that Jesus was a carpenter as we find in Matt. 16:18 or Mark 6:3.  But, few study the Greek word that carpenter translates.  I never heard on pastor teach on this.  Not one.  The Greek word is TEKTON. It is a broad term for a craftsman, artisan, or builder, often used specifically for a woodworker or carpenter. Tekton refers to a skilled worker who constructs with various materials, including wood and stone.  Shown below are a few websites to check this out https://biblehub.com/greek/5045.htm https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/tekton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekt%C5%8Dn This Greek word tekton in the Septuagint translates the Hebrew word CHARASH חָרָשׁ H2796.  The meaning in Hebrew is artisan or craftsman whose trained hands shape wood, stone, metal, or precious gems or any material.  Thus, since there was NO New Testament in Jesus'day, only the Hebrew Scriptures, we can confidently say Jesus was not only a carpenter but construction worker.   And as B'zal'el and Oholee-av were to lead a group of CHRASHEEM to build God's Dwelling Place, our Jesus, who is a CHRASH, will build His congregation.  And this congregation will be like ONE TEMPLE, one place where God dwells.  I can't make this up.  The connections are too awesome. These two words in the podcast, TEKTON and CHARASH, were related to the Hebrew phrase tikkun olam (pronounced taykoon olam) תיקון עולם originating in the Mishnah meaning “to fix everything.”  Reform Judaism states that tikkun olam has evolved from a purely spiritual, concept into a mandate for social action, social justice, and environmentalism.  Dennis Prager, a famous conservative talk show host and scholar, who is also a deeply religious Jew, feels that tikkun oal as social justice shows why so many American Jews are democrats.  Some other modern Jewish interpretations suggest that in the absence of a single, personal Messiah, humanity itself (as a collective) is responsible for being the "Messiah" by performing acts of kindness to heal the world.  This results in the general concept in contemporary Judaism that repairing the world is ONLY through human effort to usher in a future Messianic era.  This clearly is not the view in Christianity.  Christians hold to the fact that the Messiah (Jesus) has come to begin this restoration, with a future return for a final, complete, restoration and renewal of the entire universe. The Christian view seems to be more correct.  The phrase tikkun olam appears in the Jewish prayer in the 2nd paragraph called Ahlaynoo עָלֵינוּ – meaning it is against us, on us, or incumbent on us.  This prayer may have been written in Jesus' day.  It first appears in the Mishnah is the 3rd century A.D.  Clearly, the prayer says God will fix everything and perfect the world.  Today in religious Jews seemed to have abandoned the idea that God does tikkun olam.  This is clear in the prayer and in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is nothing in the prayer or in God's word that says Messiah will come only if mankind does tikkun olam.  Shown below is the prayer. סידור אשכנז, ימי חול, תפילת שחרית, סיום תפילה, עלינו א׳ עָלֵֽינוּ לְשַׁבֵּֽחַ לַאֲדוֹן הַכֹּל, לָתֵת גְּדֻלָּה לְיוֹצֵר בְּרֵאשִׁית. שֶׁלֺּא עָשָֽׂנוּ כְּגוֹיֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת, וְלֺא שָׂמָֽנוּ כְּמִשְׁפְּחוֹת הָאֲדָמָה; שֶׁלֺּא שָׂם חֶלְקֵֽנוּ כָּהֶם, וְגוֹרָלֵֽנוּ כְּכָל הֲמוֹנָם. שֶׁהֵם מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים לָהֶֽבֶל וָרִיק וּמִתְפַּלְּלִים אֶל אֵל לֹא יוֹשִֽׁיעַ. וַאֲנַֽחְנוּ כּוֹרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים וּמוֹדִים לִפְנֵי מֶֽלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים, הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֶה שָׁמַֽיִם וְיוֹסֵד אָֽרֶץ, וּמוֹשַׁב יְקָרוֹ בַּשָּׁמַֽיִם מִמַּֽעַל, וּשְׁכִינַת עֻזּוֹ בְּגָבְהֵי מְרוֹמִים; הוּא אֱלֺהֵֽינוּ, אֵין עוֹד. אֱמֶת מַלְכֵּֽנוּ, אֶֽפֶס זוּלָתוֹ, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרָתוֹ: וְיָדַעְתָּ הַיּוֹם וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל לְבָבֶֽךָ כִּי יְהֹוָה הוּא הָאֱלֺהִים בַּשָּׁמַֽיִם מִמַּֽעַל וְעַל הָאָֽרֶץ מִתָּֽחַת, אֵין עוֹד. TRANSLATED: It is our obligation (incumbent on us or AHLAYNO עָלֵֽינוּ) to praise the Master of all, to ascribe greatness to the Creator of the [world in the] beginning: that He has not made us like the nations of the lands, and has not positioned us like the families of the earth; that He has not assigned our portion like theirs, nor our lot like that of all their multitudes. For they prostrate themselves to vanity and nothingness, and pray to a god that cannot deliver. But we bow, prostrate ourselves, and offer thanks before the Supreme King of Kings, the Holy One blessed is He, Who spreads the heavens, and establishes the earth, and the seat of His glory is in heaven above, and the abode of His invincible might is in the loftiest heights. He is our God, there is nothing else. Our King is true, all else is insignificant, as it is written in His Torah: And You shall know this day and take into Your heart that Adonoy is God in the heavens above and upon the earth below; there is nothing else. סידור אשכנז, ימי חול, תפילת שחרית, סיום תפילה, עלינו ב׳ עַל כֵּן נְקַוֶּה לְךָ, יְהֹוָה אֱלֺהֵֽינוּ, לִרְאוֹת מְהֵרָה בְּתִפְאֶֽרֶת עֻזֶּֽךָ, לְהַעֲבִיר גִּלּוּלִים מִן הָאָֽרֶץ וְהָאֱלִילִים כָּרוֹת יִכָּרֵתוּן; לְתַקֵּן עוֹלָם בְּמַלְכוּת שַׁדַּי. וְכָל בְּנֵי בָשָׂר יִקְרְאוּ בִשְׁמֶֽךָ, לְהַפְנוֹת אֵלֶֽיךָ כָּל רִשְׁעֵי אָֽרֶץ. יַכִּֽירוּ וְיֵדְעוּ כָּל יוֹשְׁבֵי תֵבֵל כִּי לְךָ תִכְרַע כָּל בֶּֽרֶךְ, תִּשָּׁבַע כָּל לָשׁוֹן. לְפָנֶֽיךָ, יְהֹוָה אֱלֺהֵֽינוּ, יִכְרְעוּ וְיִפֹּֽלוּ, וְלִכְבוֹד שִׁמְךָ יְקָר יִתֵּֽנוּ, וִיקַבְּלוּ כֻלָּם אֶת עֹל מַלְכוּתֶֽךָ, וְתִמְלֺךְ עֲלֵיהֶם מְהֵרָה לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד. כִּי הַמַּלְכוּת שֶׁלְּךָ הִיא, וּלְעֽוֹלְמֵי עַד תִּמְלוֹךְ בְּכָבוֹד, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרָתֶֽךָ: יְהֹוָה יִמְלֺךְ לְעֹלָם וָעֶד. וְנֶאֱמַר, וְהָיָה יְהֹוָה לְמֶֽלֶךְ עַל כָּל הָאָֽרֶץ; בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִהְיֶה יְהֹוָה אֶחָד וּשְׁמוֹ אֶחָד: TRANSLATED: We therefore put our hope in You, Adonoy our God, to soon behold the glory of Your might in banishing idolatry from the earth, and the false gods will be utterly exterminated to perfect the world (that is לְתַקֵּן עוֹלָם or Leh Taykoon Olam) as the kingdom of Shadai. And all mankind will invoke Your Name, to turn back to You, all the wicked of the earth. They will realize and know, all the inhabitants of the world, that to You, every knee must bend, every tongue must swear [allegiance to You]. Before You, Adonoy, our God, they will bow and prostrate themselves, and to the glory of Your Name give honor. And they will all accept [upon themselves] the yoke of Your kingdom, and You will reign over them, soon, forever and ever. For the kingdom is Yours, and to all eternity You will reign in glory, as it is written in Your Torah: Adonoy will reign forever and ever. And it is said: And Adonoy will be King over the whole earth; on that day Adonoy will be One and His Name One.  (Accessed at www.sefaria.org) Rev. Ferret - who is this guy?  (Ferret - visiting ancient Gath in Israel.  Didn't see Goliath though!) What's his background?  Why should I listen to him?  Check his background at this link - https://www.dropbox.com/s/ortnret3oxcicu4/BackgrndTeacher%20mar%2025%202020.pdf?dl=0    

In today's episode, Mark Hammer joins Jenny as a co-host as they interview Doug Van Dorn. Doug explores the origins of the biblical canon, differences between the Septuagint, Masoretic Text, and Dead Sea Scrolls, and their significance for understanding Scripture today. Doug provides deep insights into biblical texts, translation issues, and historical transmission, helping listeners appreciate the richness and reliability of the Bible.Learn more about Doug here: https://www.douglasvandorn.com/Check out his latest book, The Battle for the Bible TruthThis season of the podcast is sponsored by Rowe Casa Organics—makers of clean, natural, and truly effective products that support your health and home the way God designed. Use code THEROOTEDTRUTH to save 20% on your first purchase, or ⁠simply click here. ⁠

In today's episode, Mark Hammer joins Jenny as a co-host as they interview Doug Van Dorn. Doug explores the origins of the biblical canon, differences between the Septuagint, Masoretic Text, and Dead Sea Scrolls, and their significance for understanding Scripture today. Doug provides deep insights into biblical texts, translation issues, and historical transmission, helping listeners appreciate the richness and reliability of the Bible.Learn more about Doug here: https://www.douglasvandorn.com/Check out his latest book, The Battle for the Bible TruthThis season of the podcast is sponsored by Rowe Casa Organics—makers of clean, natural, and truly effective products that support your health and home the way God designed. Use code THEROOTEDTRUTH to save 20% on your first purchase, or ⁠simply click here. ⁠

Lilith keeps showing up: in video games, TV shows, ancient mythology, and feminist websites. But she also shows up in the Bible. And most Christians have no idea.Michael Miller sits down with Nelly Van Sickle, pastor of Evergreen Calvary Chapel and host of The Dancing Toaster podcast, to trace the biblical and historical case for Lilith as a genuine supernatural entity. Starting with Isaiah 34:14 and working outward through the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, this isn't mythology dressed up as scripture. It's scripture first, history second.Nelly also shares what happened when he started researching her. The demonic oppression that began almost immediately. And what finally made it stop.Along the way they cover the "Adam's first wife" theory and why Genesis 2 shuts it down, the connection between Psalm 91:5-6 and "the terror of the night," a Dead Sea Scroll exorcism hymn that names a lilit-type entity by class, and the question of what happened to the women who cohabitated with the sons of God in Genesis 6.If you've been curious about Lilith and wanted an answer that actually starts with the biblical text, this episode is for you.Scripture References: Isaiah 34:14 | Psalm 91:5-6 | Genesis 4:22 | Genesis 6:1-4 | Leviticus 17:7 | 2 Chronicles 11:15 | Deuteronomy 12 0:00 – Introduction5:52 – Supernatural Encounters16:24 – Lilith in Isaiah 3427:15 – Ancient Near East Context39:19 – Adam's First Wife Debunked45:51 – Dead Sea Scrolls Evidence56:07 – Female Demonic Entities1:03:56 – Final ThoughtsINTRO TO DELIVERANCE MINISTRY: https://www.theremnantradio.com/intro-to-deliverance-ministry___________________________________________INTRODUCTION TO DELIVERANCE MINISTRY eCoursePRESALE: $100 OFF through May 1 LEARN MORE: https://www.theremnantradio.com/intro-to-deliverance-ministry Subscribe to The Remnant Radio newsletter and receive our FREE introduction to spiritual gifts eBook. Plus, get access to: discounts, news about upcoming shows, courses and conferences - and more. Subscribe now at TheRemnantRadio.com. Support the showABOUT THE REMNANT RADIO: The Remnant Radio exists to equip believers who are hungry for the radical middle of both Word and Spirit. Subscribe for twice-weekly content on theology, church history and the gifts of the Spirit.

A @Christadelphians Video: **Ai Summary** [Inspiring] We, as Christadelphians, found this fourth instalment in the ‘So many versions of the Bible...Why?' series absolutely outstanding and wonderfully revealing. Jason Hensley takes us on an insightful journey into the world of *hapax legomena* – words that appear only once in Scripture. This thought-provoking exposition explains why translation must constantly be revised, how our growing knowledge of ancient languages (like Ugaritic and Koine Greek) unlocks meaning, and why humility is essential when handling God's Word. We explore the fascinating contrast between the simple vocabulary of John the fisherman and the technical terms of Luke the physician. The video also highlights the honest approach of the King James translators, who admitted uncertainty rather than dogmatising. If you've ever wondered why Bibles differ, this is a must-watch.**Chapters** 00:00 – Introduction 01:10 – Challenging words & translation philosophy 03:46 – What is *hapax legomena*? (Definition) 06:00 – Frequency in the New Testament (1,672 times!) 08:02 – Author backgrounds: John vs. Luke vs. Paul 10:30 – The translator's dilemma: no other passages to compare 12:42 – Using the Septuagint and extra-biblical sources 14:38 – BDAG lexicon & early Christian literature 15:29 – King James Version preface: humility and margins 17:14 – Cognate languages: Ugaritic, Akkadian, Arabic, Coptic 18:46 – Conclusion: why ongoing discovery matters **Bible Verse Category**

Friday Bible Study (4/10/26) // Ezra 10: 18-44 (ESV) // Those Guilty of Intermarriage // 18 Now there were found some of the sons of the priests who had married foreign women: Maaseiah, Eliezer, Jarib, and Gedaliah, some of the sons of Jeshua the son of Jozadak and his brothers. 19 They pledged themselves to put away their wives, and their guilt offering was a ram of the flock for their guilt.[a] 20 Of the sons of Immer: Hanani and Zebadiah. 21 Of the sons of Harim: Maaseiah, Elijah, Shemaiah, Jehiel, and Uzziah. 22 Of the sons of Pashhur: Elioenai, Maaseiah, Ishmael, Nethanel, Jozabad, and Elasah.23 Of the Levites: Jozabad, Shimei, Kelaiah (that is, Kelita), Pethahiah, Judah, and Eliezer. 24 Of the singers: Eliashib. Of the gatekeepers: Shallum, Telem, and Uri.25 And of Israel: of the sons of Parosh: Ramiah, Izziah, Malchijah, Mijamin, Eleazar, Hashabiah,[b] and Benaiah. 26 Of the sons of Elam: Mattaniah, Zechariah, Jehiel, Abdi, Jeremoth, and Elijah. 27 Of the sons of Zattu: Elioenai, Eliashib, Mattaniah, Jeremoth, Zabad, and Aziza. 28 Of the sons of Bebai were Jehohanan, Hananiah, Zabbai, and Athlai. 29 Of the sons of Bani were Meshullam, Malluch, Adaiah, Jashub, Sheal, and Jeremoth. 30 Of the sons of Pahath-moab: Adna, Chelal, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattaniah, Bezalel, Binnui, and Manasseh. 31 Of the sons of Harim: Eliezer, Isshijah, Malchijah, Shemaiah, Shimeon, 32 Benjamin, Malluch, and Shemariah. 33 Of the sons of Hashum: Mattenai, Mattattah, Zabad, Eliphelet, Jeremai, Manasseh, and Shimei. 34 Of the sons of Bani: Maadai, Amram, Uel, 35 Benaiah, Bedeiah, Cheluhi, 36 Vaniah, Meremoth, Eliashib, 37 Mattaniah, Mattenai, Jaasu. 38 Of the sons of Binnui:[c] Shimei, 39 Shelemiah, Nathan, Adaiah, 40 Machnadebai, Shashai, Sharai, 41 Azarel, Shelemiah, Shemariah, 42 Shallum, Amariah, and Joseph. 43 Of the sons of Nebo: Jeiel, Mattithiah, Zabad, Zebina, Jaddai, Joel, and Benaiah. 44 All these had married foreign women, and some of the women had even borne children.[d]Footnotesa. Ezra 10:19 Or as their reparationb. Ezra 10:25 Septuagint; Hebrew Malchijahc. Ezra 10:38 Septuagint; Hebrew Bani, Binnuid. Ezra 10:44 Or and they put them away with their childrenWebsite: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mbchicago.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FOLLOW USFacebook: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  / mbc.chicago  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  / mbc.chicago  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  / mbc.chicago  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TO SUPPORT US Zelle to: info@mbchicago.org Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mbchicago.org/give⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Venmo: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://venmo.com/mbchurch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ DAF Donations: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://every.org/mbc.chicago⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ PayPal: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://paypal.com/donate/?hosted_but...⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ #Ezra #BookOfEzra #BibleStudy #BibleExplained #Bible #BiblicalStudies #BibleTeacher #WordOfGod #BiblicalLessons

“Are there doctrinal differences on the Septuagint?” This question leads to a discussion on the major distinctions between Protestant and Catholic views, particularly regarding the seven additional books. The conversation also touches on the moral implications of generative AI, the Church’s response to potential ex-cathedra proclamations, and the interpretation of visions experienced during psychedelic ceremonies. Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit Catholicanswersspeakers.com Questions Covered: 04:40 – Are there any major doctrinal differences between Protestants and Catholics in regards to the Septuagint apart from the 7 books? 14:44 – What are the moral implications of using generative AI? Where is the line on when it’s sinful? 36:50 – My protestant friend asked me this: what would happen if the pope tried to proclaim ex-cathedra something contrary to Church teaching? Does the Church have a contingency plan? 47:24 – What do we make of people who have visions on psychedelics who use them as a spiritual ceremony?

In this powerful episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony and Jesse return to their parable series with an in-depth examination of the Laborers in the Vineyard from Matthew 20:1-16. This often-misunderstood parable confronts our natural inclination toward merit-based thinking and exposes the scandal of God's grace. The hosts unpack the covenantal language embedded in the text, particularly the workers' "grumbling"—a loaded term echoing Israel's wilderness rebellion. Through careful exegesis and theological reflection, they demonstrate how this parable dismantles religious entitlement while celebrating God's sovereign freedom to bestow mercy according to His purposes, not our calculations. The discussion offers fresh insights into grace, election, and the radical generosity that defines God's kingdom economy. Key Takeaways The parable operates on covenant logic, not economic fairness: The landowner's dealings with his workers reflect covenantal promise-keeping rather than marketplace transactions, establishing that God's relationship with His people is fundamentally gracious. "Grumbling" carries profound theological weight: The Greek word used for the workers' complaint is the same term in the Septuagint for Israel's wilderness rebellion—not mere dissatisfaction, but a covenantal accusation against God's faithfulness. Two types of workers represent two approaches to God: The first-hired workers who contracted for specific wages represent those relating to God through legal obligation and merit, while later workers who trusted the owner's promise represent faith-based relationship. The reversal of payment order is narratively essential: By paying the last workers first, the landowner deliberately exposes the merit-based assumptions of the first workers, forcing them to confront their entitlement. Grace doesn't negate justice—it transcends it: The landowner fulfills every contractual obligation while simultaneously exercising sovereign generosity beyond what is owed, demonstrating that mercy and justice coexist in God's character. The parable addresses the present kingdom, not just heaven: Because it includes grumbling and complaint, this parable describes life in God's kingdom now—the "already but not yet"—rather than the consummated state. Divine sovereignty in salvation is the theological climax: The landowner's declaration "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?" directly addresses God's freedom in election and the scandal of unmerited grace. Key Ideas The Covenantal Nature of the Landowner's Dealings The parable's opening establishes a formal agreement between the landowner and the first workers: one denarius for a day's labor. This contractual arrangement is crucial for understanding what follows. Unlike marketplace haggling, this represents a covenant—the landowner binds himself to provide what he has promised. Tony emphasizes that even this initial contract is an act of condescension and grace, as the master had no obligation to employ anyone at all. As the day progresses, subsequent workers are hired with increasingly less formal agreements. By the third hour, the landowner promises only "whatever is right," and by the eleventh hour, no wage is even mentioned. These later workers enter the vineyard based entirely on the landowner's character and trustworthiness. This progression mirrors the movement from law to gospel—from contractual obligation to trusting promise. The theological implication is profound: those who relate to God based on His gracious word rather than calculated merit are actually in a more secure position than those who attempt to earn their standing through works. The Wilderness Echo: Grumbling as Covenant Violation The hosts make a critical exegetical observation about the Greek word for "grumbling" (γογγύζω) used in verse 11. This is not casual complaining but the identical term used throughout the Septuagint to describe Israel's covenant rebellion in the wilderness. When the workers grumble "upon receiving" their wages, they're not merely expressing disappointment about pay inequality—they're filing a covenant lawsuit against the master, accusing him of unfaithfulness. This connection to Numbers 16 and Exodus 16-17 is devastating. The Israelites' wilderness grumbling wasn't about logistics or comfort; it was fundamentally about doubting God's covenant fidelity. By employing this loaded terminology, Matthew signals that the first workers' complaint is nothing less than accusing God of covenant violation. The landowner's response ("Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?") is a covenant defense—he has fulfilled his obligations precisely. The workers' real offense is not miscalculation but begrudging God's freedom to show mercy beyond what is contractually required. The "Evil Eye" and Begrudging God's Grace The final rhetorical question—"Or do you begrudge my generosity?"—contains another Jewish idiom often lost in translation. The Greek literally reads, "Is your eye evil because I am good?" This "evil eye" imagery appears throughout Scripture as a metaphor for envy, stinginess, and resentment toward another's blessing. The landowner's question cuts to the heart: are you cursing me for being generous? This directly parallels Jonah's response to Nineveh's salvation. Jonah had just experienced miraculous deliverance through the great fish, yet when God showed identical mercy to the Ninevites, Jonah's response was essentially, "I knew you were gracious—that's why I ran!" The parable exposes the same perverse logic: those who have received covenant mercy begrudging that same mercy extended to others. For the Pharisees listening to Jesus, this was an indictment of their resentment toward tax collectors and sinners receiving the kingdom. For Christians today, it challenges any sense of spiritual superiority based on how long we've been in the kingdom or how much we've sacrificed. Memorable Quotes Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity? That 'or' is a logical connector—either I'm not allowed to do what I want with my belongings, which is ridiculous, or if I am allowed, then you must be mad at me for being generous. Those are the only options. — Tony Arsenal The grumbling in the Old Testament in this context is a covenantal accusation. These workers aren't just complaining about not getting what they thought they would—they're questioning the veracity of the covenant that was made. — Tony Arsenal Most of us are this eleventh-hour call. It's much better to be in the place of that younger brother who comes in and repents than to be the older brother who is stubborn and finds some reason to come before God with self-righteous grievances. — Jesse Schwamb Full Episode Transcript [00:01:05] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 488 of the Reformer Brotherhood. I'm Jesse  [00:01:13] Tony Arsenal: and I am still Tony, and this is the podcast where Tony comes back. Hey brother.  [00:01:19] Jesse Schwamb: Hey brother. The band is back together again, man. It's reunited and boy, do you feel it? It feels good, doesn't  [00:01:26] Tony Arsenal: it? I do, I do. I'm excited to come back. It was nice to take a break. [00:01:29] Jesse Schwamb: Good.  [00:01:29] Tony Arsenal: I, uh, I've been, you know, texted with you a couple times. Just it was, I did my best to sort of not think about the podcast because that's sort of defeats the purpose of taking a break from something if you spend a lot of time thinking about it. Um, so I'm back. I'm refreshed. I'm ready to go.  [00:01:44] Break and Work Chaos [00:01:44] Tony Arsenal: I appreciate the listeners' patience. Uh, it's been sort of a weird, crazy busy time at work. Uh, there's a lot going on. I, I lost like. 60% of my staff in the course of like three weeks. And, um, I'm still kind of in the thick of it, but we're coming out of it. So took a little bit of time to just make sure that I was having a, an appropriate space to de-stress from that and take care of my family and attend to worship. And, um, it was really a, a blessing to have that. Uh, sort of sabbatical. Ironically, the sabbatical wars were going on at the same time on Twitter, and Jesse is blissfully unaware of that 'cause he's not involved in in the Twitter. That's true. Um, but yeah, just took a little break and it's kinda like overblown it, to call it a sabbatical. Like this is a podcast, it's a hobby, but, but it was nice to have, uh, a little bit of extra time, you know, couple hours extra week, uh, uh, each week of extra time to just decompress and, uh, play with the kids and spend time with my wife and clean the house a little bit, which was good.  [00:02:36] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, it is always good to have a clean house. You look great. You seem refreshed. The voice sounds good, and I'm like, I don't know, in year seven or eight of my Twitter sabbatical, it's going great so far. I feel like I haven't missed a whole lot. The world still seems wild and I'm sure, or X, right? We gotta go X on this. It's  [00:02:53] Tony Arsenal: always Twitter. It's always gonna be Twitter. I don't care what Elon Musk  says.  [00:02:56] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, I'm listen. I'm totally fine with that.  [00:02:58] Back to Parables [00:02:58] Jesse Schwamb: And I teased this in the last episode, but we can't be stopped. I mean, people should know this by now, we have an inexorable march through the parables of Jesus's true. That will not be stopped. We're always gonna come back until there are no more. And on this episode, we're gonna be hanging out in Matthew 20, talking about laborers in the Kingdom of Heaven.  [00:03:17] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. I'm stoked. I'm, I'm, I'm excited to get back into it. I'm excited to get back into the word together with everybody. I'm excited to clear whatever that was on in my throat out  [00:03:27] Jesse Schwamb: emotion,  [00:03:27] Tony Arsenal: live on the air. Uh, but yeah, it'll be good. I'm, I'm stoked. I mean, I love this stuff and it's good to be back.  [00:03:32] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, you had the rest. Now let's talk about labor. So speaking of labor, it's, it's time for you to work up here, Tony. Are you affirming with or denying against on this episode?  [00:03:42] Tony Arsenal: Uh, I'm affirming something and I'm hopeful, uh, that just a little behind the scenes activity here. Jesse recorded episode 487, like an hour and a half ago. I have not yet listened to it, so I don't know if you did an affirmation and I I did. If you did. I hope it's not the same one.  [00:03:58] Jesse Schwamb: I did not. You're  [00:03:59] Tony Arsenal: safe. Uh, good. So I'm safe.  [00:04:01] Artemis II Hype [00:04:01] Tony Arsenal: So, um, I'm affirming the Artemis two mission. Um, oh, nice. Have you been, I mean, I know you're not on Twitter, but I'm sure there's news elsewhere. Uh, this amazing mission around the moon, um, for astronaut, for astronauts, I think, um, the furthest man space travel, um, since the Apollo program. Um. Pretty intense, pretty amazing pictures, right? The camera technologies amazing. Increased exponentially, uh, since we were there last. Um, this is ostensibly in preparation for an actual moon landing, which who knows when that will be? Um, but as far as I've seen, the mission was a resounding success. There was no right. I think they had, they ran into a few little hiccups early on with some technical things, but nothing crazy. I have not heard. Um, I know they did touch down and they did reentry. Um, I've not heard anything one way or another, but I'm assuming since I have not heard terrible, tragic news that they made it through, did they do the reentry? I'm really, apparently I'm not actually paying as much attention to this as I thought I was. I saw a lot of information about reentry, but I guess, I don't know for sure when that happened or is happening.  [00:05:05] Jesse Schwamb: I mean, by this point, when people listen to it, it'll be old news anyway, right? So  [00:05:09] Tony Arsenal: For sure. Yeah. And either, either it went terribly wrong and I'm gonna feel awful, or it went fine and I'm gonna feel a little silly for. Throwing a caveat that it went terribly wrong out there. But, um, it's cool. It's, it's amazing. I mean, I, I commented to my wife the other day and she's kinda like, yeah, maybe we should like, spend that money on people who are on the planet. I was like, okay, I can, I can buy that wisdom. But, um, there's something very cool and very Genesis, uh, one, ask Genesis one and two, ask about flying out into space and taking dominion over Yeah, for sure. Over a, a little ball of rock, uh, you know, uh, 25,000 miles away or whatever it is. Um. And, you know, I'm like an engineering nerd. I, I don't know anything about engineering, but I love watching YouTube videos that explain stuff like this. And  [00:05:52] Jesse Schwamb: me  [00:05:52] Tony Arsenal: too, all of the videos that have cropped up now about free return and how, like they're able to basically like do minimal burn on the thrusters to get into the right trajectory and then just like meet the moon in the place it's gonna be. And then the, you know, the moon's gravity captures it and whips it back around and then shoots it back towards Earth. And for the most part, they're able to do all of that with relatively minor, um, relatively minor energy output because they're just utilizing physics and gravity and math, um, to fly to the moon and come back. Yes. It's pretty crazy amazing. So, yeah. Amazing. And the photos of like the, the sort of like new versions of the Earthrise photos are really, really phenomenal. Um, they're crisp, they're clean, they're obviously like the best, the best actual pho photographic images we've had of the lunar surface. Um. And the, the far side of the lunar surface, which we get all sorts of like telescopic photos and things of this side of the lunar surface because it's tightly locked and is facing us at all times. We don't get a ton of really great photography of the far side of the moon, which is a big part of what this mission was, so,  [00:06:56] Jesse Schwamb: right.  [00:06:56] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. If you haven't seen the photos, I mean, they're out there, they're amazing. There will be even more available once we get back. You know, they, they're transmitting only the most stellar, amazing ones. Um, and, but they're taking, I'm sure thousands and thousands of photos and, um, so yeah, it's pretty cool. I'm affirming the Artemis two mission. Um. It's just amazing what, what people can do with common grace, you know? That's right. In insight into nature. Um, I don't know anything about the astronauts. I don't know anything about their religious faith or their spiritual life or anything like that. But, um, the people who design this, the people who fly it, they're just tapping into the truth that's present in God's creation. So good on them. Uh, either I'm glad they got home, wish they have a safe home coming, or something along those lines, I guess. I don't know.  [00:07:40] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, you'll be happy to know that NASA is reporting that the four astronauts are an excellent condition after they landed in the Pacific Ocean. So  [00:07:47] Tony Arsenal: good.  [00:07:47] Jesse Schwamb: All, all appears to be well. And it says they have a giant SD card of pictures that's they've been taking. Yeah. And saving. I'm sure. They were just, they were just too big to send to over wifi.  [00:07:58] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Like massive wideness. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure they have a ton that they didn't send because you know Right. Data rates to the moon are pretty high. Yeah.  [00:08:05] Jesse Schwamb: Ex. Yeah.  [00:08:05] Tony Arsenal: This economy is crazy. So  [00:08:07] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly. In this economy. Really In this economy. Yeah, exactly.  [00:08:11] Cosmic Worship Reflections [00:08:11] Jesse Schwamb: I think you're right. This is good. I haven't talked about this at all. It's hard not to get just stoked, even in the amateur way about the science, the technology, the physics of all this stuff, and then even the astronauts just being overwhelmed by what they're seeing. [00:08:24] Tony Arsenal: Mm-hmm.  [00:08:25] Jesse Schwamb: It's hard not to get pulled into that and think about the universe that God has created and find that there is something transcendent just, uh, by observing all of these things. Yeah. Like even casually, which I think shows, again, this is literally the, the heavens and the earth crying out for God, showing his immeasurable power and, you know, immortal nature. It's incredible that we can even see and be a part of some of these things. Just wild.  [00:08:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, and I think it's crazy that they can get signals to the moon. I mean, I drive home from Dartmouth College and I go through half of the spot there, and I don't have a cell signal, but we can get images from the moon. Um, so yeah, it's great. It's great. Check it out if you haven't seen it. If you haven't heard about it, I don't know what you're doing. Uh, this is probably the largest major scientific advancement in our generation. Um, in terms of like big scale scientific enterprise projects. There's been a lot of really amazing technology that's been developed. But this is like the first big. Almost like risky kind of scientific,  [00:09:30] Jesse Schwamb: right?  [00:09:30] Tony Arsenal: I dunno. Gambit or I dunno, gamble that we've done in a long time. Big deal. I mean, big a lot. Deal of things. Deal. Nothing went wrong. Nothing ma major went wrong. Praise God that they all got back to the planet safely. Right. But, um, a lot of things could have gone wrong, uh, and they didn't. So check out the photos, check out the scientific data they're gonna get. I mean, I'm sure they've got all sorts of information about the way the, the, the space ship moved, all of that stuff. It's gonna be really interesting to see kind of how this all comes about.  [00:09:56] Jesse Schwamb: Get some worship on, right? Yeah. I mean this is what a one, a thing to be reminded about how big and how glorious God is. [00:10:01] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:10:01] Jesse Schwamb: And, and to realize, like you said, the risks of this exploration. And this is God again, creating all of this outta nothing. Why? Yeah. Just absolutely wild. Incredible.  [00:10:12] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, for  [00:10:12] Jesse Schwamb: sure. Blown away.  [00:10:13] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. What about you, Jesse? What do you have for us?  [00:10:15] Bayes and Predictability [00:10:15] Jesse Schwamb: I got affirmation. It's equally nerdy, and actually this is as is always the case. This is why one of many reasons I miss you is it, it dovetails so nicely, so I'm affirming with a book. It's called Everything Is Predictable, how Esy and Statistics Explains the World. It's by a guy named Tom Chivers. I know this sounds super nerdy, but hear me out on this because Thomas Bayes, if you don't know this guy is first kind of like a wild and interesting guy, but this whole theory he put forward is super interesting. And this book is not like a mathematics book. It's like reads almost like a statistical thriller, which as it came outta my mouth, realized it was not maybe more ingratiating. I could have chosen better words than statistical thriller. But Thomas Bayes was alive in the 17 hundreds. And what's interesting to me at least about him, is he was an English statistician, who was a Presbyterian minister actually. He was a non-conformist and his, this whole theorem that he developed was actually published after his death. And the non-conformist part is super interesting. It's all in this book, even some of his different theological ideas. But because he was non-conformist, it basically meant like he couldn't learn. He was kicked out of all the English universities. He had to go to Scotland. Even all of that shaped how he came up with this particular theorem. But the gist of it is. Rather than treating like probabilities, as we think about it as this fixed frequency, you know, how many times does this thing occur? He argued and realized that it should represent a degree of belief and then you would update that belief rationally as new evidence comes in. And I know that sounds super quaint, but this is like what machine learning is based on medical diagnosis. A lot of like space travel is based on this in terms of understanding uncertainty and systems spam, all of that stuff. Here's an example, I think Tony, because we are, we have to carry forward with the top 50 medical podcast thing, right? We've got going on here. Lemme just give everybody an example of why you need this and why you automatically think this way. So. Statistics is really important, especially in medical testing. This was really prevalent in during COVID. So there's two ways that you can describe how a medical test performs you. You know this already, Tony, you're an expert. So one would be like sensitivity. So like how AIG  [00:12:19] Tony Arsenal: not an expert.  [00:12:20] Jesse Schwamb: Oh, you're definitely an expert in testing. Here we go. So one would be like sensitivity. How good is the test at catching people who are sick? So if you're sick, you, you want the test to identify that, that you're sick. That's sensitivity. So a test with a 99% sensitivity is gonna correctly identify 99 out of a hundred people who are truly sick. It always gonna miss one person. It's a false negative. The other half of that coin is something called specificity. So if sensitivity is all about catching the people who are sick, specificity is gonna say, how good is the test at clearing people who are not sick? And so a test with 99% specificity, you might have correctly guessed, is gonna identify or clear 99 out of a hundred healthy people. Now if you have a test. Both of those 99% sensitive and 99% specific, you might be thinking, that is the dream. That's exactly what I want. That that test is gonna be so precise and accurate. How could my intuition fail me? But this is the thing. It actually fails all the time, and here's why. Let's say that. You go out and you screen a group of people, a general population for a rare disease that affects one in a thousand people. One in a thousand people, rare disease. So if you screen 10,000 people from the general population, that means that truly only 10 of them are going to have the actual disease. I'm not gonna do all the math 'cause it'll, oh, this is already making for amazing podcasting. But here's the bottom line. That test, which sounds so good on the face, is going to identify 109 people as truly sick or truly having disease. But the problem is that only 10 of them actually have it. That means that only there's, it only has a success rate of 9%. There's only 9% chance you actually have the disease, but it's falsely identified. The short end of this is Bayes corrects that problem. He fixes it with his theorem so that we get to the right number of people. That's what's called like a base fallacy rate. It's not taking into account that really only 10 people should have this particular disease or this sickness. So I know that's sounds super nerdy, but so much of our lives are based on this. We have a prior belief or a prior set of things that we understand about the world. And then as evidence comes in, we refine that. That sounds so normal and normative, but it's revolutionary in this book actually. Bayes versus what's called like frequentist or frequent, um, probability is like hotly debated. People actually throw down over this theorem. So it's a really fun read. Go check out. Everything is predictable. Al Bayesian statistics explains our world. It really is for everybody. And then you can impress your friends with all the statistical pross you're gonna have when you're done reading it.  [00:14:56] Tony Arsenal: Like the medical administrator hat that I can't always take off is like, why would we screen 10,000 people? Are, are they all symptomatic? Are none of them symptomatic? But suppose it doesn't really  [00:15:08] Jesse Schwamb: matter for the example. That's a great, so generally what happens here is, let's say it's like some kind of rare form of cancer, unless you use Bayesian statistics, what you'll find is you'll get these false positive rates. So these tests do use Bayesian statistics. It corrects, in other words, for this problem. So there might be a lot of people that are gonna screen for this because if you, you wanna know if you have it, but you don't wanna get it wrong and say that you do. So this ensures his approach ensures that you get it. Right. It's wild. Fascinating stuff.  [00:15:34] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and I would think actually, you know, there's probably, there's other mechanisms as well where they would, where they would sort of screen out. People that shouldn't be tested or help identify false negatives, false positives. Um, but yeah, that's, that's interesting. I probably won't read that book, but it sounds like an interesting read. I just don't have a lot of room on my A TBR shelf.  [00:15:55] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, listen. That, that's fair.  [00:15:57] Goodreads DNF Update [00:15:57] Jesse Schwamb: By the way, here's like a, a side affirmation. I think you and I both share speaking like books and cataloging books. If you use Good Reads, good Reads. Right. Finally adding a list of the Do Not Did Not Finish book. That's fantastic. This, this might be an example for some people, so pick it up and even if you don't have a place for it, guess where you can put it on the did not finish list. Yeah. Good Reads.  [00:16:16] Tony Arsenal: That's finally, that's one of those like, like why didn't they add that 15 years ago? Kind of an updates and you get the email and they're like, we're so excited to introduce the did Not Finish thing. And we're like, yeah. Like of course. Like, duh. It's likes, like, we're proud to introduce that. Your keypad now has a zero on it.  [00:16:36] Jesse Schwamb: Right. So  [00:16:37] Tony Arsenal: yeah. I'm, I'm excited about the DNR, um, the DNF, um, I'm so excited. I can't even remember what it's called. Yeah. The shelf. But, uh, very, very useful. The DNR list  [00:16:47] Jesse Schwamb: is a diff it is a different list. Speaking of medical things, it's a different  [00:16:50] Tony Arsenal: list. Yeah. Yeah, that's definitely a different thing. Usually it's not a list. It's a list of one in most cases.  [00:16:56] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly,  [00:16:57] Tony Arsenal: yeah. You can't put other people on your  [00:17:00] Jesse Schwamb: DNR  [00:17:00] Tony Arsenal: This,  [00:17:00] Jesse Schwamb: I suppose. Yeah, I should clarify that. You can really, you can only really put yourself, or I suppose somebody for whom you have that kind of authority over on that list, but I was thinking that more from like a medical perspective, that somewhere there would be a database in which there might be a list of DNR. I don't know.  [00:17:15] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I'm not sure. Probably there was at some point, but I think with medical chart technology now, that's probably like a. A moot point. Yeah. They don't need to be able to like cross reference a master list anymore. They just look in the patient's electronic record. We're really like in the weeds here. You can tell it's been a while since I've, I've podcasted. I don't really remember how to do this.  [00:17:35] Jesse Schwamb: This is great.  [00:17:36] Segue to Matthew 20 [00:17:36] Jesse Schwamb: I think at this point we try to make some kind of awkward segue that is mildly successful. Again, probably has statistically like a 20 to 27% chance of being successful and really hitting the mark. Yeah. So do you have anything that's gonna move us into this?  [00:17:49] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, I mean, I feel like you've been podcasting for the last several weeks without me and I've been working hard and now I'm kind of coming in as Johnny come lately and we're gonna get paid the same amount so. Even though you've worked harder for longer and I'm coming in late to the game here. [00:18:03] Jesse Schwamb: Oh man. Ple loved ones. Please tell me you got that. Please tell me you got all of that. That's, that's what you show up for here. Yeah, that was  [00:18:10] Tony Arsenal: a deep cut.  [00:18:11] Jesse Schwamb: That, that was beautiful. And I think leads us right into Matthew 20. So I think we've got at least 16 verses to get through here. Maybe again, if we're gonna keep a statistical theme here, something about engineering and math, all that stuff, we'll let everybody else pick the over under and whether or not we're gonna get through this and how many verses that's going to be. But at this point, we might as well begin.  [00:18:32] Tony Arsenal: Yes. Yeah.  [00:18:33] Read the Parable [00:18:33] Tony Arsenal: I'll start by reading. Uh, we're here in Matthew chapter 20, the first 16 versus this is the parable of the laborers in the vineyard and it reads. For the Kingdom of Heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborer laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into the vineyard and going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace. He said to them, you go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right, I will give you. So they went, going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the 11th hour, he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, why do you stand here idle all day? They said to him, because no one has hired us. And he said to them, you go into the vineyard too. And when the evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, call the laborers and pay them with their wages, beginning with the last up to the first. And when those hired about the 11th hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now, when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it, they grumbled at the master of the house saying, these last worked only one hour and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat. And he replied to one of them, friend, I'm doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me? For a denarius, take what belongs to you and go, I choose to give the last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you beg, do you begrudge my generosity? So the last will be first and the first will be last. Now I just wanna head this off. I did bite my tongue earlier and I probably am lisping and this is like a running gag. We thought that we'd resolved it. Uh, so if you hear me stumble over my words a little bit, it's just, it's just the struggle bus today.  [00:20:24] Jesse Schwamb: Listen, this is the, these are like the real things we have to deal with when the podcasting, like the real threats, the real injuries. I appreciate you like working through it. Like you just get back up and you walk it off with your tongue.  [00:20:35] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, my, my, uh, my podcasting hiatus was actually just a recovery of the last time I bit my tongue. I just needed a couple weeks to, no, I'm just kidding.  [00:20:43] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, we didn't wanna say.  [00:20:44] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:20:44] Kingdom Fairness and Grumbling [00:20:44] Tony Arsenal: So, Jesse, this is a, this is a parable that follows right on the heels, um, of kind of everything we've been talking about. And I think as we go through these parables and we look at them and we, we sort of pick them up and we look at the different facets of them, we sort of compare them to each other. We kind of, we kind of place them in their context really. They all have basically the same theme, right? Like they're all kind of circulating around these same topics. In this parable, it's circulating around this idea that, um, the, the owner of the vineyard, the master of the vineyard, is allowed to pay the people he employs whatever he wants. And as long as the payment that is due to an individual is received by that individual, then what other people receive and how they receive it and how hard they've worked and how hard they didn't work. That's really not germane to whether or not the, the laborer received a fair wage, uh, in the first place. Right. So we're, we're circling around themes of kind of fairness of, uh, of sort of resentment, I think for resentment at the master's generosity, which has been a big theme in previous ones. So this will be good for us to expand on. There's always little nuggets and kernels of things that are different from other parables, and then it's interesting to always see the ways that they kind of line up and, and tell us similar things.  [00:21:57] Jesse Schwamb: And this parable is unique to Matthew. Yeah. And it does function as this exposition or expansion of what Jesus says in chapter 19 where it says, but many who are first will be last. And the last first, which is repeated with this lovely like inverted emphasis in, at the end of this as you just read. So it belongs to this like interesting cluster of teacher teachings on discipleship and reward nature of the kingdom of God. And we've, we've spoken a lot about that. I think I was just reminded of this as you were, you were. Reading this, I feel like I remember this from some teaching, like this parable is kind of like a unique chiasm that's anchored on the landowner, sovereign generosity, which you brought up. And then there's the complaints of the first hired, which is mirrored by the late comers vulnerability. And then the landowners, two speeches which divide everything, kind of provide sandwich and the like, the theological climax. It does start in that really familiar way, which we've gotten accustomed to thinking about that introductory formula of the kingdom of heaven is like, and it signals of course that what follows is not gonna be a lesson in economics, but it's gonna use all this economic language as theological disclosure for how God's kingdom operates. And it starts again, like you said, with this master of the house, which to me seems. Pretty clearly like a, a God figure himself. Yeah. It's, that's kind of like a reoccurring mathian image. I think. So we've got this vineyard, which of course has all this symbolism, steeply rooted in Israel's covenant imagination and evokes God's people and his redemptive labor among them. So, man, now that I'm saying this all loud, is this thing like super pregnant with all kinds of like imagery and meaning?  [00:23:27] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And you know, it's, it's always good to remember, although parables have kind of some parables, most parables have sort of distinct discreet, symbolic elements where like, this represents that this represents that almost in an allegorical form. And, and in some cases, like purely in allegorical form, where it's like pilgrim's progress where each, each individual, each entity, each location each represents some sort of symbolic value. But we have to remember that when, when it says the parable of the kingdom of heaven is like the master of the house, it's not just like the master of the house. Yes. Right. It's like this whole scenario. Yes. It's, it's like. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It's like everything that follows, it's like the entire, um, the entire paree here. That's what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. And one of the things that I think is striking about this is the kingdom of heaven is like some people complaining, like the people complaining about, some people are getting the same wage for less work. Um, that is part of what the Kingdom of Heaven is like. So I think we sometimes think of, of. The kingdom of heaven in, um, in the parables, we think of it as though God is just saying, this is what heaven is like. Right? Jesus Just saying like, this is what heaven is like, but the kingdom of heaven, that language is broader than what we normally would say, uh, is. We're thinking of heaven, like in the, the spiritual abode where God lives and the angels live. Um, where, where the departed saints are waiting for the resurrection, the kingdom of heaven is, is also inclusive of the, the sort of like. Time now between the victory of Christ on the cross and the consummation of the kingdom and the last day, the kingdom of heaven is inclusive of that time period too. And so this parable sort of situates us. I think it situates us in that pre consummated state where we're talking about what it's like to be a part of the kingdom of heaven here and now in our fallen state, but still solidly in the kingdom of heaven. 'cause there's not gonna be any complaining or grumbling about God's justice in God's fairness once we're in the final resurrected state. Right? Sure. Nobody's gonna be looking back and be like, yeah, you were way too gracious for that guy. Nobody's gonna be playing the Jonah part when we're all resurrected and we're worshiping for, for all time going forward. So this parable, because there are elements of. Dissatisfaction or elements of grumbling or complaining similar to like the, the parable of the prodigal son. There's this sun figure, the, the older sun figure who like is just a bonehead and doesn't get it. Well, that can't be talking about the people who are in the resurrection kingdom in the final kingdom. It's gotta be talking about people who are still awaiting the resurrection of the body and who are still not yet. Uh, and even in, in that parable, the, the older son doesn't even seem to be a figure who's, who's regener. Maybe he does become regener at some point in the future, but he doesn't seem to be. In, even in God's kingdom, he doesn't seem to be, even among God's people, he's consistently placed outside of the field. You don't even know he exists until Nick halfway through the parable. This is similar in that there are these workers, they're receiving their wages and some of them are, are outwardly dissatisfied and grumbling against the master of the house. Um, so I think if we think about parables as describing heaven rather than the kingdom of heaven, we can lose sight of, of what's actually being said in a lot of them. [00:26:50] Contracts Versus Grace [00:26:50] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's really good stuff because it strikes me that there are like, strangely, two groups here mentioned, I, I find this really kind of fascinating. We, I think we should talk about this, like the first group has like the most formal agreement, it's almost a legal contract, right? Various was like a standard day laborers wage sufficient mostly for subsistence. And so that detail seems theologically loaded to me. These workers relate to the landowner on the basis of a contract and what is owed. And so their claim at the end of the day will be exactly that. They're owed something and they know it, and that sets up Then this contrast with a second group, which is mostly all about grace because by the time we get to that third hour, like. Approximately like 9:00 AM then we're beginning this pattern repeated at the sixth and the ninth hours. And crucially, for those workers who go out, go out and get recruited, there's no wage that's specified for them. Only the promise of like whatever is right. And so they enter the vineyard, not on the basis of a contract, but on the basis of like the owner's word and character. And that seems to be like more of a picture of trust and not, not calculation. Yeah. Separate than like the first group. And that marketplace, idleness, as I read this, doesn't imply like laziness because verse seven clarifies like they just had not been hired. Right? They were overworked, they were unemployed. They were marginalized. So it does set up, like you said, everything you just talked about, about the kind of this, I like that. Like the Jonah, the Jonah whiners or whatever, like yeah, they want to complain about this, right? There are, and there are two, two separate groups that have kind of been brought into the fold, not under different terms or pretenses, but differently. [00:28:17] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And I think too, bear's saying, um. Although there are elements of parables that are very, very directly applicable. Mm. We shouldn't read this as though every, every specific thing in the parable is not a parable. Right. Right. I think we can look at this and we can go, you know, you can read this in a way where, oh yeah, there's some people actually earn their, earn their wage, they earn ary. Right. It's a fair contract. And they work all day and he says, well, I'm gonna give you what's right, what you, what I owe you.  [00:28:45] God Owes Nothing [00:28:45] Tony Arsenal: The reality is God doesn't owe any of us anything. Right? Right. He owes us wrath and judgment and destruction. And so even, even the people who are the hard workers in the kingdom of God don't merit and never could merit, um, to, in a certain sense, in a strict sense and stick with me before you send your, your angry emails in a real strict sense. Even Adam couldn't merit. What was, well, it was guaranteed to him, according to the Covenant of Works, God had to condescend to make the covenant of works in order for Adam to have any sort of fruition of his blessedness. So there there's no natural obligation, strict obligation that God has to reward the work of his creatures because nothing they could do could ever be sufficient enough to obligate him. So the, the obligation of himself, and that's, this is where I do think this is strong, the fact that he obligates himself to these workers to give them their denarius after a hard day's work  [00:29:37] Jesse Schwamb: exactly  [00:29:37] Tony Arsenal: is itself. A covenantal, um, contractual, yes. But I actually read this as sort of a covenantal thing and the, the strange part is that the people don't recognize the sort of semi gracious covenantal nature of this. Yes.  [00:29:50] Grace In The Hiring [00:29:50] Tony Arsenal: I think, um, you know, there have been times when I, where I've been unemployed, um, not for very long. Now, I know some people face unemployment for a lot longer than I ever have, but I know there was times where I was, I was looking for work and someone would say to me like, Hey, you know, my, my, my lawn needs to be mowed. Could you come over and I'll, I'll give you 25 bucks to mow my lawn. It's a small lawn. Um. That's a gracious act in most cases. Right, right. Um, yes, I'm performing a task. Yes, they're paying me, but they didn't have to offer me that work. They didn't have to offer me that job, especially when it's something that like they could have accomplished themselves. They could have just done it themselves. Um, so I think there's an element of that here, that there's, there's a condescension of the master to these workers, to these laborers who are not part of his household. These are not, they're not slaves. These are not people who are part of his household, who are regular employees. These are people that he goes out into the market to, to find and to hire. And as we see some of, some of these mark, like the difference between the ones that are hired and the ones that are not hired until later in the day, the parable's not super clear about what it is. Just that they're not hired, it doesn't say the lazy ones were left there. The ones were exactly, that were ugly or had like limp legs or like just couldn't cut it. It just says like there was some that didn't get hired. Um, so there's a gracious element of this, and that makes the recognition at the end or the lack of recognition at the end by these full day laborers, the, the sort of like recognition, this, this entitled ness, um, that actually makes it all the worst. It's like the people who are outwardly attached to the covenant of grace. Um, I know all the Baptists in our, our group, their heads just exploded, but like are outwardly attached to the covenant of grace, um, who wanna somehow complain about like the graciousness of the covenant of grace that they're outwardly attached to it. It's just sort of like a form of, of theological and temporary insanity, I think. And that's what we see on full display here.  [00:31:40] Jesse Schwamb: It's definitely all grace. You're right that nobody's gonna get injustice right in this parable. And I think that's definitely exemplified the further out you go in this hiring order. [00:31:49] Eleventh Hour Mercy [00:31:49] Jesse Schwamb: So by the time you get to 5:00 PM which is pretty extraordinary, right? Only really like one hour remains before sense, right? It's the end of the working day.  [00:31:56] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:31:56] Jesse Schwamb: You can imagine like these guys who are being hired at the hour probably can contribute very little in the last hour of the day, right? But this owner goes out and hires them and no agreement is stated whatsoever. It's just pure grace. The landowner's question, why do you stand here idle all day? I think to your point, underlies their vulnerability. They were not idle by choice, presumably. And so I think we rightly here in this, like a foreshadowing of those who are called the late in redemptive history, Gentile sinners, the seemingly least qualified for kingdom membership. All of that I think is at play and it's all, it's getting this lovely setup of all these groups to help us understand what that kingdom is actually like.  [00:32:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah.  [00:32:35] Reverse Payroll Setup [00:32:35] Tony Arsenal: And then we have this, um, this is where the sort of dramatic tension turns, right? The end of the day comes and, uh, the master calls the, the people that he brought last, right? He calls the people who'd only been there for an hour and he starts to go down the list of the people who, the people who were last, and the people who came in next. And the people who came in next, right? And the workers who had contracted at the beginning of the day. Um, they're watching this happen and they're kind of going, oh, this is gonna be good. Like, that guy's only been here for an hour and he got a denarius. You know, the logic is probably like, I'm gonna get 12 denarius, like I'm gonna go 12 days worth of work. Um, because I think there's an assumption on their part, um, that the master's fair that he is, he's providing an equitable wage. Um, of course the master is fair, but he's providing an equitable wage that's commensurate with the work delivered. A delivered, delivered, right? And that, that's the key to this parable.  [00:33:26] Merit Mindset Exposed [00:33:26] Tony Arsenal: I think the expectation that God. Helps those who help themselves. Right? God rewards those who put in the hard work. God. God provides blessing or salvation according to the merit provided by the one who's being saved. That perspective is what's on full display here. Yes. By the people who are, uh, the ones who contracted for the full day. They're not thinking about the covenant that they have with this person or the contract they have with this person. They're not thinking about the fact that they agreed to work for the day in order to earn a day's wage. They're thinking about how this actually is gonna work out great in their favor. They're looking at this as a strictly merit-based kind of a, a thing. And you would think that like when the, the one hour people come in, they get a denarius, and then the three hour people come in and they get a denarius. You'd think they would pick up on it at some point, but then in the course of the payroll, it doesn't seem that they do. They still get to the bottom of the list and think they're gonna get more compared to the other people who all got the same.  [00:34:22] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that display piece is critical to this. It is like complete setup. Like you can imagine he, the landowner calling everybody together at the end of the day and they're all standing around. Some of them are exhausted because they've again born all their work in the heat of the day on their backs. They're tired, they're dirty, maybe they're exhausted. And he starts in this reverse order. And by the way, we should note that there is something here that's beautiful in that the law, the landowner is law abiding because right evening payment is mandated in the Torah. So we see all this taking place as to fulfill the law in some ways. But the reversal of the order that last of first is like such deliberative and good narrative storytelling and staging, isn't it? 'cause it ensures that the first hired workers are going to witness the payment of those who work the least. And if without that order, if you just did it the other way around, the more a crisis of the parable disc like completely goes away.  [00:35:10] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:35:10] Jesse Schwamb: So this execution of the payment at the owner's will, it just shows that he has. He's completely independent. His sovereignty belong. The sovereignty belongs to the master alone. And so this 11th hour workers receiving a full day's wage for one hour of work, that's like an act of sheer generosity. It's not proportional justice. And I think as reform, people, maybe all of us at some point have had this conversation about predestination and justice and mercy. And again, really I think putting a crowbar between this idea that nobody is receiving injustice, but some are receiving mercy and grace. And here these first hired workers seeing this form, like you said, this expectation that they're gonna receive more, like you said, where that came from. Yeah, it's just them, right? It's purely manufactured in their own reasoning. It's not anchored in the covenantal promise and certainly not witnessed in the grace that they should be receive, like perceiving as the payments get doled out, like sequentially moving in their reverse order toward those who have worked the longest. But their expectation reveals that they have fundamentally misread like the landowner's character. They're still operating in the register of a contract and not grace.  [00:36:16] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. And you know, I think to sort of lock this covenant covenantal frame and sort of like lack of recognition of the covenant into place too, when you look at the language of this parable, um, and especially kind of what it's following up on, it's coming on the heels of this interaction with this rich, rich young ruler who comes in and he thinks that he's gonna earn eternal life by keeping the commandments. Um, and, and he, he has this outward sense or this outward display of pty. He's calling Jesus good. He's saying he, you know, he keeps the commandments, Jesus doesn't even disagree with him actually, that he has connect. Yes. You know, I think it's implied that, well, of course you haven't, but he, he still is graciously trying to like, convince this guy, no, you actually need to abandon your self righteousness and, and pursue and follow me. Um. But this is a parable where like other people are listening, right? There's other witnesses. This isn't like the rich young ruler came to him in the middle of the night, like Nicodemus. This is something that's happened on PO on in the public. So we can anticipate that the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the scribes and the lawyers were all aware of this. They may have been there, but they were at least aware of this happening. And I think there's some language in here that is actually directed at those people.  [00:37:30] Grumbling As Accusation [00:37:30] Tony Arsenal: And, and here's where it comes in, is you get to verse, um, we'll start reading again at verse nine. It says, when those hired about the 11th hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now, when those hired first came, so we're referring to the people who are hired at the beginning of the day. Now, when those who were hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius and on receiving it, right? So this is as, this is, um, uh, just unbelievable as they're receiving the denarius on receiving it, they grumbled at the master of the house. Now, just the way that I read that and said the word grumbled tells you that that word is really important here. Yes. If you look at this Greek word. And you compare it to the, the word, the usage of this word in the, the, um, Sept. Yes. Which of course is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This word most commonly appears in the wilderness wandering accounts. [00:38:22] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.  [00:38:23] Tony Arsenal: Right. And the, the primary sin of the Israelites during the wilderness wandering was grumbling against the Lord. And this grumbling against the Lord in that context is not just a general complaining, right. It's not just like a, a sort of like a, a general dissatisfaction or like murmuring. This isn't like water cooler frustration about your boss. The grumbling in the Old Testament in this context is a covenantal accusation, right. So this is tied to the, the accounts where Moses first is told to strike the rock, and he does so when the water comes out, and then second is told to speak to the rock, but he strikes it. I won't go into all the details, but the scene that's being, being displayed there is the people come, they accuse the Lord of abandoning them into the wilderness. And this scene where Moses is set up on the rock and he strikes the rock, that scene is a judicial scene. The people have filed a covenant accusation against the Lord, and in reality, it's the people who have been unfaithful. But the Lord standing in the place of the rock is the one who is struck, right? Jesus was the rock in the wilderness from which the water came. Paul says that in First Corinthians, right? So this language of grumbling in this is not just, they're not just complaining about the fact that they didn't get what they thought they were going to, they're questioning the veracity of the covenant that was made. So they're, they're still locked into this merit-based. This merit-based idea even more than it seemed at first, right? There's a logic to the idea that like, oh, if the, the master is actually paying a wage of one denarius for per hour, like there's a logic to that. But it's not just that they're saying, and this is, this explains the response of the master. It's not just that they're saying like, Hey, wait a second, like the wage rate that you're paying is not right. They're saying you have violated the terms of our covenant in the way that you have paid us. 'cause it's upon receiving it that they complain or they grumble and the master says more or less like, Hey. You agreed with me for one Denarius, I'm giving you what you've earned. I'm giving you what you agreed on. Why don't you take it and go. So the answer is not to try to justify why he is free to pay these other people more, or why he's free to pay these people a perceived less. The answer is, again, they're complaining against the covenant. He is bringing it back to the covenant saying, well, here's what the covenant relationship was. You work for the day. I give you Denarius. We're square here, we're on the same page. We've fulfilled our covenant obligations, and you've received your reward for that. So I, I think that's another thing we have to lock in here is this is not just a general idea of like unfairness that's being presented. This is not just a general idea that people are saying the master of the house is unfair. They're saying he's covenantal. Unfaithful. Right? That's a pretty big accusation.  [00:41:09] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that is, thank you by the way, for completely stealing the whole tugen thing from me. Like I was just going hot to Tugen to find that reference. And now all I can do is add to it. So that is from at least one of those occasions, a number 16, and I just wanna read the verse. This is 16 six. So Moses and Aaron said to all the sons of Israel at evening, you will know that Yahweh has brought you outta the land of Egypt. And in the morning you will see the glory of Yahweh for he hears your grumblings against Yahweh. And what we are that you grumble against us. So I'm totally with you. This is not subtle. The workers first complaint here, the first workers' complaint is like theologically serious. Uh, I think that's what you're hitting us on. Like it charges the owner with injustice. Right. And as I read it, the grievance has like two layers or two parts, I would say. One is this comparative part, which is basically saying, you made us equal to them. Right? And the second be like a meritorious part, they have worked harder and in worse conditions. And that's why they say things like, it's, it's all inflammatory language, isn't it? Like the scorching heat emphasizes like the real bodily cost and their complaint. I think if we're honest, it's not irrational, but it's spiritually revealing at least because Right, they believe their greater effort, mayors greater reward and they resent that grace shown to others. So like you said, they're bringing forward a very serious grievance and it's, it's not just like, Hey, we think maybe could you give us a bonus? Right. But that is a matter of faithfulness. And in fact, like as I'm looking at this tugen here, shout out to logos Bible software. And I'm saying that that verb that we're talking about in Exodus 16 is in the imperfect tense. So this is, they kept on grumbling and it is like an an echo of Israel's murmuring in the wilderness, which I presume like Matthew certainly had intentionally used there or had that view in part casting these workers as the same types of those who relate to God through entitlement rather than gratitude. So it's like insults upon insult here, but it is to emphasize this fact that it's no small accusation, it's not subtle, it's meant to be in your face. They're coming in hot with this and they're making a big deal about it.  [00:43:16] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and again, I think like underscoring the covenantal nature of this is so key. And I think, you know, when we look at this, we really have to land that this is not just saying. Your wage structure is not right. 'cause and, and we gotta remember, they weren't there when the master went and made this bargain, or, you know, brought these other workers into the vineyard. They weren't there to hear what covenant or contract he did or didn't make. And as we've commented, they didn't, he didn't even make a covenant with them. He basically just said, I'm gonna put you to work and I'll pay you what's fair. I'll pay you what's right. Um, and they went, okay, you need the work and thank you. Like, I think, I think that's kind of like the, the scene here is they're standing there. They recognize they're not gonna get a wage for the day, especially these ones that he's coming in at the 11th hour, they're not gonna get a wage for the day. And as you said, these are subsistence workers. Right. These are people that if you don't get a wage, and this is the, the grounding of the Old Testament, um, the Old Testament command of, of paying at the end of the day is that if they don't get their wage, they're not gonna eat. They're not gonna have food, they're not gonna have the money they need to survive. Um, so he comes in and he basically says like. You don't have a job that's not gonna be good for you. I'll take care of you. I'll, I'll give you a job and I'll take care of you. And the ones who are complaining and grumbling, they have no line of sight to that process. That, that's right. They make a lot of assumptions about the, and this is, goes back to, um. The parable of the talents, which we haven't really talked about yet. The, the, there's a lot of assumptions about the nature of this master that the, the contracted or covenanted day laborers are making that don't turn out to be accurate. Right. They, they assume that he's working, as you've said, that he's working on this one-to-one, you know, quid pro quo. You do this, I do that kind of a, a methodology and he's actually operating on a basis of a much more. Basic, uh, grace principle. Uh, and again, even, even the principle of hiring these original workers and covenanting with them is gracious in the sense that he didn't have to hire them. Right. So, so all along the way they're, they're, it's like the epitome of looking a gift horse in the mouth.  [00:45:24] Jesse Schwamb: Yes.  [00:45:24] Tony Arsenal: They've been hired, and so yes, it is right for them to expect their, um, to expect their wage, whatever that wage might be. But they, they are misinterpreting the idea of what the wages are and how the wages are to be delivered. They're, they're applying, this is actually a lot like job's, friends, right? Their, their logic is not actually all that bad, but they have, they have missing parts of the picture that makes the logic. Apply differently in this particular situation. They think that this, this master works on a strict merit-based. You do X amount of work, you receive X amount of money. And this master is actually more functioning on this covenantal principle of, I'm gonna pay you what's right, regardless of what, what work you've done, which, what work is actually owed to you. And the master makes these, this agreement with these other workers to just say, go into the vineyard and then when the evening comes, I'll pay you. Right. Well, he intended to pay them what they needed to survive, regardless of how much work they provided. Right? So they're all, even though there's a formal contract to say these, this group works for the whole day and this group, you know, and, and they receive one day's labor, at the end of the day, he's graciously providing another day of survival for all of these people, for the work that they're, they're putting forward regardless of how much they actually contribute to his bottom line. [00:46:41] Owner Defends The Covenant [00:46:41] Jesse Schwamb: And we see that in verse 13, where the landowner gives his defense, you know, it says. He and he replied, friends, I'm doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for Denarius? Now the address, because now I'm deep in the Greek Tony. Here we go. So the address I'm seeing in, uh, again, shout out to Locus Bible software, it, this use of friend is not like the warm fellows, but like a more formal or distance term of address. It's used elsewhere in Matthew. But I think the point here is that the owner's first line of defense is this contractual point, which you're saying. I have not wronged you. He's kept his agreement precisely. No injustice has been done. And that's crucial. The owner doesn't re appreciate justice. He actually fulfills it. He obligates himself and he fulfills that obligation. And what the worker receives is exactly what was promised and exactly what is due. And so by the time he gets to verse 14 where he says, take what belongs to you, and go, I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you here. I think this is like the theological beating hide of this whole bad boy. Yeah.  [00:47:37] Jesse Schwamb: The landowner explicitly invokes his will, his sovereign freedom to do and to give as he pleases, which is exactly how God behaves. It's not a negation of justice, but this declaration of something beyond justice, it is grace. He exercises his freedom and generosity to those who had no claim, and the command, take what belongs to you and go is, is kind of like a world dismissal, like, like you were saying. Yeah. We're in the courtroom. He's like, I, I've ruled on this already. Like, bring Brian, bring your grievance. Here's my ruling. Take what you have and go. Their grumbling has revealed that they're not celebrating the kingdom. They're actually grieving it. So yeah, you know, I think original invocation of like Jonah is right on the money. It's basically like, are are you mad enough? Yeah, I'm mad enough to die. Like, how dare you give me, give me this great shade and then take it away from me. Yeah. And in some ways this is even worse because what they have been given has been that were promised to them, was given to them, and they get to retain and God says, go, or the landowner as God says, go now and take what is yours. Take what I've given to you graciously. But your point that like what supersedes that, the antecedent to all of that is still God's covenant keeping, covenant making promise, making, right? That sets the whole thing up. But I love this idea that, you know, I will choose, it's my desire, it's language of divine volition. And of course the reform theology, this single verb resonates with the entire doctrine of election. It's God's free, sovereign, and gracious will to bestow blessing without reference to merit, like praise his name.  [00:49:00] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And then we come to kind of the close of this parable, right? And this is, this reall

Ancient Roots of Life Episode 41

In this compelling solo episode, Jesse Schwamb unpacks one of Scripture's most famous—and misunderstood—passages: Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees and Herodians over paying taxes to Caesar. Far from being a simple political soundbite, Matthew 22:15-22 reveals Jesus' brilliant wisdom in dismantling false dilemmas and redirecting our focus to identity rather than ideology. Through careful exegesis, Jesse demonstrates how Christ's response cuts through political posturing to address the deeper question: Whose image do we bear? This episode serves as both a masterclass in biblical interpretation and a timely reminder that our ultimate allegiance belongs not to any earthly authority, but to the God whose image we carry. Perfect preparation for the podcast's upcoming journey through the parables of Jesus. Key Takeaways Jesus Cannot Be Cornered: The Pharisees and Herodians crafted what seemed like an inescapable trap, but Jesus transcends false dilemmas by reframing the question entirely, demonstrating His divine wisdom and authority. The Imago Dei Is Central: By asking "Whose image is this?" about the coin, Jesus points to the deeper question: Whose image is on you? We bear God's image, making our primary obligation to Him, not Caesar. Civil Authority Is Real but Bounded: Jesus affirms legitimate temporal authority ("render to Caesar") while establishing that all such authority is derivative and limited by God's ultimate sovereignty. Hypocrisy Is Exposed by Action: The Pharisees' immediate production of a Roman coin revealed they were already participants in the system they questioned, undermining their supposed concern for Jewish law. Amazement ≠ Transformation: The opponents "marveled" and left, demonstrating that intellectual defeat or astonishment at Jesus' teaching is not equivalent to spiritual conversion or surrender. Identity Precedes Politics: Before asking what we owe the government, we must ask what we owe God—the answer being ourselves, as those created in His image. The Breath of Divine Life: Our creation bears special intimacy—God breathed life into humanity, making us doubly unique as both image-bearers and recipients of His divine breath, foreshadowing spiritual regeneration. In-Depth Analysis The Imago Dei Is Central Jesus' response to the tax question brilliantly redirects attention from political obligation to theological identity. When He asks "Whose image is this?" about the denarius, He's employing the Greek word eikon—the same term used in the Septuagint translation of Genesis 1:27 for humanity being made in God's image. This isn't coincidental wordplay; it's deliberate theological teaching. The profound truth here is that while Caesar's image on a coin establishes his claim to that piece of metal, God's image stamped on humanity establishes His total claim on us. We are not our own; we were bought with a price far greater than any taxation. The coin metaphor works because it's a physical representation of ownership and authority—but our bodies and souls are the true "coinage" that belongs to God. This reframes every political question as ultimately subordinate to our identity as image-bearers, reminding us that our primary citizenship, allegiance, and obligation is heavenly, not earthly. Civil Authority Is Real but Bounded Jesus' statement "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" has often been misinterpreted as establishing a complete separation between sacred and secular realms. However, Reformed theology—particularly Calvin's interpretation—understands this passage as establishing legitimate but limited civil authority within God's sovereignty. Caesar's authority is real and should be respected; Christians are called to submit to governing authorities as Paul argues in Romans 13. However, this authority is derivative, not ultimate. Caesar operates within a sphere that God ordains and limits. There is no zone of existence that belongs exclusively to Caesar, outside God's jurisdiction. The state has legitimate claims on our obedience, our taxes, and our civic participation—but never on our worship, our ultimate allegiance, or our conscience when it contradicts God's law. This creates a framework for Christian citizenship that takes earthly government seriously while never granting it the totalizing authority that belongs to God alone. Amazement ≠ Transformation The conclusion of this encounter is sobering: the Pharisees and Herodians were "amazed" but unchanged. They marveled at Jesus' wisdom, were intellectually outmaneuvered, and had nothing more to say—yet they walked away to plot His crucifixion. This demonstrates a crucial truth for evangelism and apologetics: winning an argument is not the same as winning a soul. Intellectual defeat can coexist with spiritual hardness. Someone can acknowledge the brilliance of Jesus' teaching, be unable to counter His logic, and still refuse to surrender their life to Him. This reminds us that conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit, not merely the result of superior argumentation. Our task is faithful witness and clarity in presenting truth, but we must pray for the Spirit to do what only He can do—soften hearts, open eyes, and bring dead souls to life. Astonishment at Jesus must give way to submission to Jesus. Memorable Quotes "You can never corner Jesus. Of course, you can never catch him off guard. And while those seem like very just trite and straightforward explanations of who he is and what his character is like as the son of God, we should not go away from them too quickly because what we find here is the wisdom and the brilliance of God in providing teaching to cut to the hearts of what is actually in the question." "Caesar can have his coin, but he cannot have you. Not in any ultimate sense. You and I, loved ones, we belong to God." "Being out argued is not the same as being transformed. You can leave someone with nothing to say and still not reach the heart." Full Episode Transcript [00:00:08] Jesse Schwamb: So here's the trap. If Jesus says yes, pay the tax, he completely alienates the crowd of Jewish pilgrims who are beginning to believe that he might be the Messiah who will liberate Israel from Rome if he says. No, do not pay it. He could obviously be reported to the Roman authorities as a seditious rebel. Either answer loses. There's really no good way out of this. At least on the face. Either answer costs him something, his popularity or his freedom, and this is what we call a false dilemma. The Pharisees think that they've got him cornered. But here's the thing, loved ones they haven't. You can never corner Jesus. Of course, you can never catch him off guard. And while those seem like very just trite and straightforward explanations of who he is and what his character is like as the son of God, we should not. Go away from them too quickly because what we find here is the wisdom and the brilliance of God in providing teaching to cut to the hearts of what is actually in the question. And Jesus doesn't play this game. Welcome to episode 487 of The Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse, and this is the podcast for all those with the Imago Day. Hey, brothers and sisters, so let's talk taxes. Now you should know that the Reform Brotherhood is not that kind of podcast, but I suspect that you had one of two responses when you heard that topic. Either it piqued your interest or you thought, I'm just totally gonna skip this episode, and I get that. That's a polarizing topic. It's in part why I said it at the top, but I want us to chat a little bit today about a passage of the scripture where Jesus himself brings up taxes, but not in that way. In fact, he demonstrates some exceptional teaching, showing the wisdom of God in a very difficult and complex circumstance. And so we're gonna spend just a little bit of time hanging out in Matthew 22.  [00:02:17] Why Matthew 22 [00:02:17] Jesse Schwamb: Now, why are we doing this? Why this on this episode? Well, we're about to continue on the podcast, our inexorable march through all of the parables of Jesus as we go into the summer months. It's parable, summer loved ones, which I realize sounds like a horrible name for like a low budget drama. But in this case, Tony and I are about to reem embark or pick up our journey in the parables of Jesus. And what we find in Matthew 22 is this little exchange. It happens. And it actually is in the midst of a bunch of parables that are happening. It's in some ways a response to the parables that Jesus is bringing forward. And also, I just love this passage so much, and since we're doing one more solo episode, before we, we reunite and the band comes back together and we start talking about parables. I thought this is a great way for us to, again, consider the teachings of Jesus. In light of everything that he's saying and teaching in these really lovely stories. And so we find ourselves to think right in Matthew 22, which is a great place to be. So come hang out with me there. Grab a Bible, go stop your car right now and pull up on your phone the Matthew 22 so you can read along with me because this is something fantastic. It's one of the most famous passages actually in the gospels. And also at the same time, it's one of the most misused texts in the history of political theology. Because people on every side of almost every date about this topic, especially taxes since they're mentioned here, have reached for this passage, like it's some kind of Swiss Army knife. So I think the best thing that we can do. Our conversation right now is, let's slow down a little bit. Let's chill out. Let's get easy. Let's read it carefully and figure out what Jesus was actually doing here because it is, I promise you, far more interesting than just like a soundbite about taxes and the way that I beta you. At the top of this episode by saying, let's talk about taxes. [00:04:09] Setting the Scene [00:04:09] Jesse Schwamb: Now, before we get to this particular passage, here's a bit of scene setting, which I think is really important before we get to verse 15, which is where we're gonna pick up. Jesus has entered Jerusalem in the triumphal procession. He's cleansed the temple. He's cursed a fig tree, and he delivered three withering parables aimed directly at the religious establishment. We've got the parable of the two sons. The parable of the Wicked Tenants, the parable of the wedding banquet, which by the way, we're gonna get to all those bad boys. They will all have their own episodes because they're all brilliant and exceptional in each their own way, and they deserve for us to sit in them a little bit. But by the time we reach chapter 22, verse 15, I think at this point the Pharisees have heard enough. They are not stoked about the fact that Jesus is coming after them and coming in hot. And so the response is, let's set a trap. Let's now go back on the offensive. Let's give Jesus a test in front of everybody. So he's gonna be pinned down with something very difficult to explain or to answer. And so that's exactly where we find Matthew writing in 22 verse 15.  [00:05:15] Reading the Passage [00:05:15] Jesse Schwamb: Here's where we pick it up. Matthew writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Then the Pharisees went and took counsel together about how they might trap Jesus in what he said, and they sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians saying, teacher, we know that you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth and deferred a no one for you are not partial to any. Therefore, tell us what do you think? Is it lawful to give a tax to Caesar or not? But Jesus knowing their wickedness said, why are you testing me? You hypocrites, show me the coin used for the tax. And they brought him a denarius and he said to them, whose likeness in inscription is this? They said to him, Caesar's. Then he said to them, therefore rendered Caesar, the things that are Caesar's and to God, the things that are god's. And hearing this, they marveled and leaving him, they went away. What an incredible passage. I love this so much in part because we're about to see here this wisdom in the teaching of God through Jesus. It's both spicy. It comes with almost like a clenched fist. It strikes back, but it gets to the root of something that wasn't even part of the original question and unentangle the trap to such a degree that the end result is that. Everybody is left speechless and they just have to walk away.  [00:06:41] Enemies Unite [00:06:41] Jesse Schwamb: And it starts with this idea that the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. Matthew actually uses this interesting word here, this idea of they took counsel together. It's a formal deliberate scheme. In other words, they definitely talked about this. It's premeditated, it's not impulsive. It's a confrontation with design. And the Pharisees are doing opposition research. They want to. Trap him, tangle him up. The Greek is to snare or to trap in a net. So they're hunting. They're trying to snipe Jesus, and they're going to send in this least likely combination of collaborators, collaborators, to do this whole thing. It's worth noting here. These groups that we have in the passage, the Pharisees and the Herodians, these guys were natural enemies. The Pharisees were Jewish priests or purists who despised Roman rule, and the Herodians were political pragmatists who basically owed their power to Rome. And so these guys, you can imagine, they agreed on almost nothing except that Jesus needed to be stopped. And when your enemies join forces to come after you. I guess you know, you've been effective. We might think about the own, own, our own times in which we live and the kind of polarized way our societies tend to be bending and tilting right now. And to think what would it take for everybody to come together, unite on common hatred or disagreement about some kind of third element or party? What would it take for that to happen? And so here, there is. The sense in which both the Pharisees and the pros for all of their dislike toward each other, for all their philosophical and religious disagreements, for all of their political conniving against each other, they are completely united in this purpose. And they easily come together to say, Jesus, we must deal with, and it requires all of us, let us come together and reason against him finding a way that we can consolidate our effort and power to such a degree that we leverage one another to entrap him. So there's something here where I think they're demonstrating what the Psalms say that God, when the nation's rage against God, he laughs. He holds 'em in derision. And here's a perfect example of that. In a microcosmic kind of way, we find these two groups who really should never be with one another, finding common ground and unity to try to defeat. Jesus.  [00:08:56] Flattery as a Trap [00:08:56] Jesse Schwamb: And so this delegation arrives and here is their approach to Jesus. They say, teacher, we know that you are true and you teach the way of God truthfully, and you don't care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances. This is some kind of magnificent flattery, and it actually, it's almost entirely true, which just makes this so ironic. There's a confession among the Herodians and the Pharisees, even as I tried to undermine Jesus, you know, that's what makes this so dangerous. They say you don't care about anyone's opinion. You're not swayed by appearances. They're essentially saying you can't be pressured. You'll answer honestly no matter what. And in saying so, they're trying to pressure Jesus, of course, into answering honestly. But it's like a rhetorical judo move. The compliment is the trap spring mechanism. Calvin, in this passage, likes to know that they address Jesus as teacher to feign respect while concealing this animosity, this ho hostility that they have towards him. They want him to be relaxed. Flattered off guard as if it's possible to take the son of God off guard, but notice what they're actually confessing in that flattery. Jesus is truthful. He teaches God's way accurately. He's not a respecter of persons. Every word they speak in false praise is true testimony about who he is, which makes their hypocrisy all the more damning. And this is the thing, for as much as anybody wants to try to blaspheme Jesus for as much as anybody wants to come at him with one particularly. Facet of his character. For instance, he's a good teacher or he seems to teach peace and love and truth and that, and that's it. They compliment him while at the same time confessing themselves short of the true confession of who he is. And so it's ironic to me that these guys. Who in their hearts are holding all of this malice toward Jesus. Say, well, you're not a respecter of persons because you th see things as they are and not merely as they appear to be, while all the time thinking that they're truthfully concealing the fact that they hate him and yet are flattering them with his, flattering him with their tongues. The absurdity of this is absolutely insane. And so I think if you're in this moment, you have to be appreciating. This sense of what is building here? How is Jesus going to respond? The trap has been set. They've tried to flatter him, and of course he's not buying it. But they start with this question. All of that's a set up to say here is like the real punchline. Tell us then, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?  [00:11:36] The False Dilemma [00:11:36] Jesse Schwamb: Now, if you're like me, quite honestly, you might wish that Jesus answered this question differently. This is the trap, the trap. Snapshots on this single question or so they think, I mean, I, I truly believe they think they're being really smart here, that they've come to terms with maybe lots of ideas. I don't know what they did. Whatever the equivalent of using chat GPT was, they said, how can we entrap Jesus? They all got together. They devised a plan. I'm sure they had. Some kind of whiteboard where they're brainstorming ideas and some came up and said, no, that's not gonna work. And others came. I imagine they settled on this because they thought there was no way outta this. And in some ways it's actually a really brilliantly engineered dilemma. The tax in question here is the kenzos. This was the Roman poll tax. A denarius per head paid directly to Rome, and it was incredibly and deeply controversial. Some Jews viewed paying it as completely an act of collaboration with an occupying pagan power, and the zealots called it outright sin, and the HEROs thought it was perfectly fine. So here's the trap. If Jesus says yes, pay the tax, he completely alienates the crowd of Jewish pilgrims who are beginning to believe that he might be the Messiah who will liberate Israel from Rome if he says. No, do not pay it. He could obviously be reported to the Roman authorities as a seditious rebel. Either answer loses. There's really no good way out of this. At least on the face. Either answer costs him something, his popularity or his freedom, and this is what we call a false dilemma. The Pharisees think that they've got him cornered. But here's the thing, loved ones they haven't. You can never corner Jesus. Of course, you can never catch him off guard. And while those seem like very just trite and straightforward explanations of who he is and what his character is like as the son of God, we should not. Go away from them too quickly because what we find here is the wisdom and the brilliance of God in providing teaching to cut to the hearts of what is actually in the question. And Jesus doesn't play this game.  [00:13:40] Coin and Hypocrisy [00:13:40] Jesse Schwamb: Jesus aware of the malice says, why? Put me to the test. You hypocrites, show me the coin for the tax. He doesn't even pretend to take the question at face value. He immediately identifies what's happening. This is a test and you all are hypocrites. Now, for me, I think if you are in the seats or standing in the shoes or the sandals, I suppose, of the Herodians or the Pharisees. I would be like, if I were on the side, I would be like, pull up, pull up, get out, get out. He's onto us just just with Jesus directly coming at them and labeling them as hypocrites. I think that itself undoes all of this. They've been exposed from the very beginning and Jesus doesn't mess around. It's like him coming into the temple to cleanse the temple, and it's as if in his left hand, he has mercy in his right hand. He has that cord that whip. And the word that Matthew uses here for hypocrites is one that Jesus deploys with like surgical precision throughout his this gospel. A hypocrite is someone performing virtue they do not possess. And right away he identifies it. These men are performing concern for Jewish law while actually serving their own political agenda. And I love that the son of God in power does not put up with that at all. And then, and I think this is. Absolutely delightful. Jesus asked them for a coin of all the things he could have said or done. Here's where there is like a little bit of a kind of a parable feel to this. He asked for the physical object, the thing that they're talking about. He asks, and interestingly, he doesn't have one. He's the guest of Pilgrim, the one without a Roman Denarius in his pocket. But, and here's what's interesting. Loved ones, they produce one immediately for him, which means the people who are asking whether it's lawful to use Roman currency are already using Roman currency. Jesus hasn't even answered yet, and hypocrisy is already self-evident. I think that's a considerable fact. The, the instance that they're able to produce the coin promptly, I don't think is a minor detail. It implicates them. They're already participants in the Roman economic system, which. I would say it's not necessarily a bad thing. Their question about whether it's lawful to pay taxes to Caesar is somewhat undermined though by the fact that they're carrying Caesar's money in the temple precincts. In other words, the whole thing just smells a setup. And even Jesus asking for the coin is showing them and others around them that not is he onto them. Not only does he see through them, but he is undermining the complete argument that they're making, showing that the question that they need to have answered is actually not about taxes at all. It's about something much deeper he's about to answer or bring forward the question, rather, whose image is on you. [00:16:29] Whose Image [00:16:29] Jesse Schwamb: And he starts by holding up the coin and saying, whose image is on this? So they bring him a denarius and Jesus says to them, whose likeness and inscription. Is this now the denarius of Tiberius Caesar bore his portrait in the inscription. The inscription, generally historians say, said something like Tiberius Caesar, son of the Divine Augustus, and it was a claim of divinity stamped into everyday commerce. This is why so much of the Jews found it so offensive to participate because it felt as if in every transaction you were affirming in some way the divine authority of Caesar. It was a claim that was stamped on the coin and therefore represented in every kind of transaction that took place throughout the lamb. Every time a Roman coin changed hands, Rome's imperial theology was in some ways quietly proclaimed, and Jesus holds it up and he asks this obvious question. Whose face is on this thing, and the Greek word for likeness here, whose likeness is, this is the word for image. This is the word the SubT uses in Genesis one. When God makes humanity in his image, in the Imago day, Jesus is about to build an argument that depends on this resonance, whether his questioners hear it or not. Whose image is on the coin and whose image is on you. Those are two very different questions with two very different answers. And of course, they lead to this incredibly famous reply, one that's known by most people, but I think not understood by many. So they said, Caesar's Caesar's image is on this coin.  [00:18:12] Render to God [00:18:12] Jesse Schwamb: So Jesus says to them, therefore. Render to Caesar, the things that are Caesars and to God, the things that are God. I think of almost all the places in the scriptures. This might be Jesus at his most dazzling. I say that partly. Subjectively, because I'm captivated by this whole encounter. I'm captivated and drawn in by the son of God and his teaching here. I'm captivated by his ability to see through what's happening here, and I'm captivated by the truth that he delivers. But I think I'm not alone because objectively, when we get to the end of this, we find everybody else marveling. Notice that Jesus doesn't choose between the two horns of this dilemma. He reframes the entire question. He blows up the entire premise because even here, the choice of language is so incredible. The word render means to give back what is owed, to return, what belongs to someone. Sometimes we hear this as give, give to Caesars. What is Caesars? Just give it to him. This seems like a, a secular question you're asking me. So keep this secular nonsense out of what is this sacred life? But instead it's not just give it's give back, render as in this was already his to begin with. So give Caesar back. What has Caesar's image on it? The coin bears his image. The coin belongs to his realm, fine. But when that, but then comes this, this second half, this glorious truth, that's far better, and this is where the weight falls. Give to God, what has God's image on it. And what of course, bears the image of God, you and I, every human being made in the mago de bears the divine image. Caesar can have his coin, but he cannot have you. Not in any ultimate sense. You and I loved ones. We belong to God. And of course, from a reform perspective, this is the bedrock of what we mean when we speak of the Lordship of Christ over all of life. There's no zone of existence that is only Caesar's. Caesar operates within a sphere that God ordains and limits. The state has legitimate authority. Paul's gonna argue that in Romans 13, but the authority is derivative. It's not ultimate Caesar's domain is real, but bounded God's domain is total and unbounded. And so that's why. Calvin insists that Jesus never divides life neatly into sacred and secular. Rather, he is establishing that all of life is lived before God, and within that totality, there are legitimate temporal authorities to whom we owe appropriate submission. The coin goes to Caesar, but the person. The image bearer of God is owed entirely to the Lord.  [00:20:50] Imago Dei and New Life [00:20:50] Jesse Schwamb: I was thinking, again, reading through Genesis, just how beautiful the CR creation narrative is when it comes to mankind, that God is ex ne hill speaking things into existence. He's showing his great command over all things. The spirit hovering over the waters from the beginning. And here's God in this Trinitarian act, bringing into the existence, all the things that you and I know, all the things which are familiar to us that we still marvel at, but are part and parcel peace wise of the world in which we live. And I sometimes forget that when it comes to that day, when God creates man, that he forms him and then he takes a breath and he breathes. The specialty of that type of creation that you and I are derivative and contingent beings, but we're way separate than all of creation because God has breathed his very breath of life into us. And in that way, it's not just that he set us up and said, let me design mankind to be like me, which he does. Let us make mankind in our own image that Trinity says in the scriptures, but also that consummation of life. Comes from the very breadth of God himself. And in that way we find that human beings are doubly special. I would say that one, that God has formed us to be like him to exhibit many of his qualities, but two, that life itself didn't come just from merely speaking, but there's an intimacy. More or less loved ones. He put his lips on ours and breathed into us so that we might be alive. And of course, the scripture itself tells us that the second life, the abundant life, salvation itself is very much like that. In the same way, Jesus didn't come to make bad people good. It came to make dead people alive. And so we need that breath of life again. And when we are surrendered to him, when he comes and arrests our hearts, when he does that incredible surgery of cutting us and removing that heart of stone and replacing it, one with flesh, we are made alive in Christ so that we gain more in Jesus than what we lost in Adam. [00:22:50] Amazed Not Changed [00:22:50] Jesse Schwamb: So what is everybody's response when Jesus explains all of this? Well, I love what the scripture says when they heard it. They marveled and they left him and went away. They marveled the Greek here is, is the word actually for enthusiasm. They were amazed and astonished. It's not actually polite appreciation. This is like draw drop of people who came to spring a trap and watched it spring BRAC on them. There was no follow up question. I love this, don't you? That this is so complete, so succinct, so confronting, so condemning, so damning that they had nothing, they, they left. Imagine maybe they looked at each other with that look of like, does anybody else have anything else they wanna say? 'cause if not, I just want to get outta here right now and notice what Matthew doesn't say. He doesn't say that they repented, he doesn't say that they believed they were astonished. And they left. They walked away. And this is one of those sobering realities of the gospels. Jesus could silence his opponents without converting them. Intellectual defeat is not the same thing as spiritual surrender. The Pharisees went away to a pla to a. Construct a plan essentially of crucifixion of how to kill him. And being out argued is not the same as being transformed. I think for us in evangelism and apologetics, it's a good reminder that winning the argument is not the goal. Clarity is a gift and faithful witness matters, but conversion is the work of the spirit. You can leave someone with nothing to say and still not reach the heart, and this should move us to pray accordingly. So I'm amazed by this teaching because it draws us back to this understanding that what the Pharisees meant to use for entrapment to in the temporal space. To divide Jesus, to make him basically say something that he did not want to say, to put him in a place he did not want to be. Instead, he uses the convey the greatest message of all, and that is we are God's children. And ironically, the ones who are professing to be God's children had missed the point altogether because what they really needed to ask was, whose image is on you? And as a result of that, what ought you to render that is to give back to God, and that is ourselves.  [00:25:00] Takeaways and Application [00:25:00] Jesse Schwamb: So here's some things I would say that we can take away from Matthew 22. A few things I think worth holding onto as you and I go about our weeks first, Jesus can't be cornered. And I, I understand that that's like obvious to say, but don't you love that about the God man? Like every intent to trap him. In this chapter and throughout the gospels now and forevermore results in his opponents looking worse than when they started. And this is how we know that we can trust Jesus, that we can trust his power, that he is for us, that his enemies will ultimately be subdued, that they will be humiliated and made low, that he is the one who cannot be caught in his words because his words are truth. I love that the scripture just tells us the truth about reality, and so we come back to it time and time again because we find it both. Warm, comfortable blankets in which we might cuddle up as it were and find ourselves comforted by God. But also it does have a sharp edge that like a knife cuts against us sometimes to remind us that we serve a holy God and that we are sinful people. It never shrinks away from the truth when that hard edge of the law must be brandished against us, and it also at the same time, never ceases to apply the bomb of the gospel to our lives where we need healing and restoration and comfort. Here's the second thing in my mind, this question, this big question, is it lawful? And what a question by the way, right? Like, you know, you could couch this in lots of different ways. Should we pay taxes? That's kind of how we think about it. But this idea of like, no, no, no. Is it lawful? Which law are we talking about? The law of God or the law of the land Even that is left for this kind of subjective reasoning to entrap. This was a question though about politics. And Jesus answered with a question about identity. I love that. Whose image is this? That is always the deeper question in my mind. And before you ask what you owe the government, we ought to ask what do we owe God? And remember that you yourself are what you owe him because you bear his image. So we start from this place where we don't get it twisted like we do in Romans one, when we're outside of God. That is, we don't wanna change the truth of God for Allah here. We need to remember that Presuppositional, all that we are, all that we have, all that we've been given, all of this is God's. And so in that contingent sense, we are merely pouring back to him that which is already due, his name and his praise. And so that's the place where we start. Third, I think there is a legitimate but bounded role for civil authority in Christian understanding of the world. That's something Tony and I have talked about before. You can go back into the Reform Brotherhood catalog, which by the way exists in reform brotherhood.com. You can find all of the 400 deficits back there. There's a search function, so you can just type in a word and at this point I'm guaranteed some episode will come up. We've talked about this before. How we're not theocrats, we're we're pilgrims. Who hold our earthly citizenship loosely and our heavenly citizenship with everything that we've got. So there is a role in our land for civil authority. Paul, again will argue this very cogently in Romans 13. At the same time, we don't wanna get it twisted. We don't want to have too much focus on that. And too little focus on the fact that our heavenly citizenship is what truly defines us because of who we are. And finally. Amazement is not enough. The Pharisees were amazed and walked away unchanged. We can't just be impressed by Jesus. We must be His. And to remind you, even I think as we engage in the parables that are ahead of us and the teaching that is behind us here in this episode, that it's not just to marvel and say, wow, isn't Jesus. Good because he is, and he is really great with his teaching. He's really great at perceiving all of this. But more than that, he's Lord and Savior of all. He's guiding us not into just like better rhetoric and how to defeat like Pulic argumentation. He's drawing us into the very heart of God, into love for him and for service for one another. And it starts with who we are and how much of our society right now. Has gotten all of this confused such that a lot of our problems is because we do not realize who we are. We are trying to change who we are, change the rules of who God has made us to be, and in this way we shipwreck our lives. And so Jesus calls us back with this simple question, whose image is this? And in that question, our loved ones, I would encourage you all to meditate, to metabolize it, to set yourselves to it. Because the task of answering that question is the task of understanding who God is and who we are in light of who God is. So there you go. Uh, just a little bit of teaching from Jesus that I think is so helpful for us, especially as we move into more parables that he's about to expand. As we go through, I don't know how many that we have left, but there's a lot of 'em, so you're gonna want to continue to hang out with us, I think, because we're gonna go through these, talk about them, process them together, pull in some exegetical chops at the same time, make sure that we're trying to apply these things, because that's the whole point here. There's so much here. I think that could be said. But I'm gonna leave the application to you. So take your time meditating and thinking through this lovely teaching.  [00:30:08] Join the Community [00:30:08] Jesse Schwamb: If you wanna come hang out and do some of this together, which, why would you not wanna do that? We are super fun people. That's what everybody says. Come and join us in the Telegram chat. You've heard me say before, telegram is just a messaging app, and we have a small corner of that app that's a private group of listeners from all around the world who are just hanging out together. We're talking about the episodes, we're talking about life together. We're sharing prayer requests. We're. Tasting things and recording videos of how delicious or not those things are. So if you're curious now about how you can join, it's super easy. Just go to any browser and type in t me slash reform brotherhood, t me slash reform brotherhood. One more time. Everybody in the back. It's t. It's in telegram.me back slash reform brotherhood and then you'll find a link which will take you right to the place where we are all conversing together.  [00:31:00] Closing Blessing [00:31:00] Jesse Schwamb: So that's it on this episode. Come hang out. We're about to jump back into the parables. The band will be back together. It's everything that you wanted and more and, and I hope that you'll come and hang out again. But until you do, you should definitely honor everyone and love the brotherhood. 

PROPHESYING DOOM and destruction during a time of peace and prosperity does not make one popular with the ruling elites. Amos learned this while declaring God's judgment on the northern kingdom of Israel during the reign of Jeroboam II (reigned 793–753 BC), the time of Israel's greatest power. The prophet was confronted by Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, and told to flee to the southern kingdom of Judah, which prompted the Lord to tell the priest that his wife would be forced into prostitution, his children would fall by the sword, Amaziah would die in a foreign land, and Israel would be taken away into exile. These things did come to pass in 732 BC, when Assyria conquered Israel and captured the capital city of Samaria. We also discuss the strange reference in the Septuagint to “King Gog” or “Agag, the king” in Amos 7:1, which is quite different from the ESV rendering, “the king's mowings” (or the NET translation, “the royal harvest”). Apparently the LXX translators didn't know what to make of the literal Hebrew (“the mowings of the king”) but recognized the context as a prophecy of destruction. Agag was the Amalekite king spared by Saul (and then executed by Samuel). In the book of Esther, Haman, the Persian official who plotted the genocide of the Jews (and thus a symbol of hatred toward Jews), was called “the Agagite.” Gog, a reference to Ezekiel 38–39, is the great end times enemy of God—essentially the Old Testament conception of the Antichrist.  Thus, the Septuagint translators who struggled to interpret an archaic reference simply plugged in a similar-sounding word (Gog or Agag) that preserved the context of a prophesied supernatural enemy of God and Israel. Sharon's niece, Sarah Sachleben, has been diagnosed with stage 4 bowel cancer, and the medical bills are piling up. If you are led to help, please go to GilbertHouse.org/hopeforsarah. Our new book The Gates of Hell is now available in paperback, Kindle, and as an audiobook at Audible! Derek's new book Destination: Earth, co-authored with Donna Howell and Allie Anderson, is now available in paperback, Kindle, and as an audiobook at Audible! If you are looking for a text of the Book of 1 Enoch to follow our monthly study, you can try these sources: Parallel translations by R. H. Charles (1917) and Richard Laurence (1821)Modern English translation by George W. E. Nickelsburg and James VanderKam (link to book at Amazon)Book of 1 Enoch - Standard English Version by Dr. Jay Winter (link opens free PDF)Book of 1 Enoch - R. H. Charles translation (link opens free PDF) The SkyWatchTV store has a special offer on Dr. Michael Heiser's two-volume set A Companion to the Book of Enoch. Get both books, the R. H. Charles translation of 1 Enoch, and a DVD interview with Mike and Steven Bancarz for a donation of $35 plus shipping and handling. Link: https://bit.ly/heiser-enoch Follow us!• X: @gilberthouse_tv | @sharonkgilbert | @derekgilbert• Telegram: t.me/gilberthouse | t.me/sharonsroom | t.me/viewfromthebunker• YouTube: @GilbertHouse | @UnravelingRevelation | @thebiblesgreatestmysteries• Facebook.com/GilbertHouseFellowship Thank you for making our Build Barn Better project a reality! We truly appreciate your support. If you are so led, you can help out at GilbertHouse.org/donate. Get our free app! It connects you to these studies plus our weekly video programs Unraveling Revelation and A View from the Bunker, and the podcast that started this journey in 2005, P.I.D. Radio. Best of all, it bypasses the gatekeepers of Big Tech! The app is available for iOS, Android, Roku, and Apple TV. Links to the app stores are at www.gilberthouse.org/app/. Video on demand of our best teachings! Stream presentations and teachings based on our research at our new video on demand site! Gilbert House T-shirts and mugs! New to our store is a line of GHTV and Redwing Saga merch! Check it out at GilbertHouse.org/store! Think better, feel better! Our partners at Simply Clean Foods offer freeze-dried, 100% GMO-free food and delicious, vacuum-packed fair trade coffee from Honduras. Find out more at GilbertHouse.org/store. Our favorite Bible study tools! Check the links in the left-hand column at www.GilbertHouse.org.

PROPHESYING DOOM and destruction during a time of peace and prosperity does not make one popular with the ruling elites.  Amos discovered this while declaring God's judgment on the northern kingdom of Israel during the reign of Jeroboam II (reigned 793–753 BC), the time of Israel's greatest power. The prophet was confronted by Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, and told to flee to the southern kingdom of Judah, which prompted the Lord to tell the priest that his wife would be forced into prostitution, his children would fall by the sword, Amaziah would die in a foreign land, and Israel would be taken away into exile.These things did come to pass in 732 BC, when Assyria conquered Israel and captured the capital city of Samaria.We also discuss the strange reference in the Septuagint to “King Gog” or “Agag, the king” in Amos 7:1, which is quite different from the ESV rendering, “the king's mowings” (or the NET translation, “the royal harvest”). Apparently the LXX translators didn't know what to make of the literal Hebrew (“the mowings of the king”) but recognized the context as a prophecy of destruction. Agag was the Amalekite king spared by Saul (and then executed by Samuel). In the book of Esther, Haman, the Persian official who plotted the genocide of the Jews (and thus a symbol of hatred toward Jews), was called “the Agagite.” Gog, a reference to Ezekiel 38–39, is the great end times enemy of God—essentially the Old Testament conception of the Antichrist. Thus, the Septuagint translators who struggled to interpret an archaic reference simply plugged in a similar-sounding word (Gog or Agag) that preserved the context of a prophesied supernatural enemy of God and Israel.  

Read Online“Amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” Deeply distressed at this, they began to say to him one after another, “Surely it is not I, Lord?” He said in reply, “He who has dipped his hand into the dish with me is the one who will betray me.” Matthew 26:21–23The Last Supper was both a glorious moment of grace and a painful moment of betrayal. During that meal, Jesus instituted the Eucharist, the gift of His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity that perpetuates His saving sacrifice until the end of time. It was also at that holy meal that one of Jesus' closest companions lied to His face and resolved to betray Him for thirty pieces of silver.According to the Torah, if an ox killed a slave, the owner was required to pay the slave's master thirty pieces of silver. The holy irony is that Judas betrayed Jesus for the price of a slave, even though Jesus came to set all people free from the slavery of sin.When Jesus informs the Twelve that one of them would betray Him, He does so without anger or self-pity. His words reflect holy sorrow, accompanied by resignation, clarity, and gentleness. This sorrow is not merely sadness over His impending suffering but a loving sorrow for the lost soul of His betrayer. Deeply distressed, the disciples respond one after another, “Surely it is not I, Lord?”The Greek word Kyrios, used here for “Lord,” denotes authority, mastery, and divine lordship. It appears frequently in the New Testament, primarily in reference to Jesus. In the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), Kyrios replaces YHWH, the sacred and unspoken name of God, about 7,000 times. By addressing Jesus as Kyrios, the eleven recognize Him not only as their teacher but as the Messiah and Son of God. This title expresses a relationship of trust and reverence, acknowledging Jesus' divine authority.When Judas speaks, he replaces Kyrios with Rabbí—“Surely it is not I, Rabbi?”—a transliteration of the Hebrew and Aramaic term meaning “teacher.” While respectful, this address falls short of acknowledging Jesus as Kyrios, focusing on Him as a human teacher rather than as Lord, Messiah, and God. This distinction is subtle but significant, inviting us to reflect on how we approach Jesus during the Holy Mass, since this conversation took place at the Last Supper—the first Mass. Do we approach Him with the heart of Judas, recognizing Him only in an earthly sense, or with the faith of the other disciples, seeing Him as Lord?Judas did not hate Jesus. Unlike the Pharisees who sought His death, Judas regretted his betrayal, tried to return the thirty pieces of silver, and tragically “went off and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:3–5). His greatest failure was that he could not look beyond Jesus' humanity to perceive His divinity. His eyes were fixed on himself—particularly his greed and selfish desires. In a similar way, when we approach the Eucharist without faith, surrender, and adoration, we risk falling into Judas' error: focusing more on ourselves than on Christ.At Mass, we say, “Lord, have mercy,” not “Rabbi, have mercy.” This prayer must come from the depths of our hearts, recognizing our need for mercy with God as its source. When we kneel at the consecration, our hearts should cry out, “My Lord and my God!” Yet, how often are we distracted, thinking about our plans after Mass? When we neglect to approach Jesus in faith and reverence, we miss the opportunity to encounter Him as He truly is—our Lord and our God.Reflect today on how you participate in the Holy Mass. See yourself at the Last Supper, uniting that moment with every Mass you attend. Pray that you may receive Jesus with love, devotion, and reverence, looking beyond the appearance of bread and wine to encounter your Lord. My Lord and my God, I believe in You, I adore You, I hope in Your mercy, and I love You with all my heart. Please fill me with a deep faith in Your presence, especially every time I attend Mass. May I recognize my need for You and surrender completely to Your mercy and love. Jesus, I trust in You.  Image: Bernard van Orley, CC0, via Wikimedia CommonsSource: Free RSS feed from catholic-daily-reflections.com — Copyright © 2026 My Catholic Life! Inc. All rights reserved. This content is provided solely for personal, non-commercial use. Redistribution, republication, or commercial use — including use within apps with advertising — is strictly prohibited without written permission.

Doug Scott examines Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's March 25 Pentagon prayer—asking God for “every round” to find its mark—and argues it reveals a dangerous politicized liturgy that sanctifies annihilation, misuses Christ's name, and feeds a planetary thought-form he calls the Great BASH. Scott traces the theological, psychological, and institutional stakes, contrasts this moment with Francis of Assisi's encounter with the Sultan, and urges readers to recognize and resist the conflation of sacred language with redemptive violence. -- Endnotes 1. Online Etymology Dictionary, “diabolic,” accessed March 2026, https://www.etymonline.com/word/diabolic. See also Merriam-Webster, “diabolical,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diabolical. The Greek diabolos derives from dia- (“across, through”) + ballein (“to throw”), literally “to throw across/apart.” Its opposite is symbolon, from sym- (“together”) + ballein, literally “to throw together.” The Septuagint translators chose diabolos to render the Hebrew satan (“adversary”). 2. Doug Scott, “How the Egregore Great BASH Shows Itself at the Threshold of Human Shift,” cosmicchrist.net, March 10, 2026; Doug Scott, “The Terran Self at War with Itself,” cosmicchrist.net, March 2026. 3. Ra Material (The Law of One), Session 15.12; Session 32.14. The orange-ray energy center governs personal identity, self-assertion, and the relationship to other-selves as individuals. Blockage or distortion at this level manifests as the inability to stabilize identity without defining against an external other. 4. Associated Press, “At Pentagon Christian Service, Hegseth Prays for Violence ‘Against Those Who Deserve No Mercy,'” March 25, 2026. Reported via PBS NewsHour, Washington Post, Military.com, Washington Times, and dozens of AP affiliates. The service was livestreamed. 5. Associated Press, via Military.com, March 26, 2026. As of that reporting, Operation Epic Fury had resulted in thirteen American service members killed and more than two hundred wounded. 6. Full prayer text reported by Brett Wilkins, “‘Heretical and Batshit Crazy': Hegseth Rebuked for Bloodthirsty Prayer Asking God to Bless Iran War,” Common Dreams, March 26, 2026, citing video posted by journalist Michael Tracey on X, March 25, 2026. Also confirmed by the Daily Beast, March 26, 2026. 7. Associated Press, via PBS NewsHour, March 25, 2026. Hegseth belongs to the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), co-founded by self-described Christian nationalist Doug Wilson. Wilson preached at Hegseth's Pentagon services in February 2026. Hegseth also attends weekly White House Bible study led by Ralph Drollinger. See Doug Scott, “Hegseth, Vance, and Johnson: Religious Framing, War Justification, and the Iran Campaign,” Great BASH Project Research Brief, March 5, 2026. 8. Associated Press, via PBS and Military.com, March 25–26, 2026. Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed suit Monday, March 23, seeking internal communications about the services, their cost, and any complaints. 9. Associated Press, via PBS NewsHour, March 25, 2026. Hegseth directed chaplains to prioritize spiritual ministry over mental health and “self-help” approaches, in a week when the military had grown increasingly dependent on chaplains to address troop mental health distress during active combat. 10. “Pentagon Pete Hegseth Prays for ‘Overwhelming Violence' at Christian Service,” The Daily Beast, March 26, 2026. Trump told reporters at Tuesday's Oval Office swearing-in of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin: “Pete didn't want it to be settled.” Trump identified Hegseth as the first cabinet member to push for military action against Iran. 11. Ronit Stahl, author of Enlisting Faith: How the Military Chaplaincy Shaped Religion and State in Modern America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017), quoted in Associated Press/PBS coverage, March 25, 2026. 12. Associated Press, via Washington Times, March 25, 2026. At a gathering of Christian broadcasters in February, Hegseth said of the Pentagon services: “We hear a lot from the ‘freedom from religion' crowd. They hate it. The left-wing shrieks, which means we're right over the target.” 13. Ra Material (The Law of One), Session 46.9–10; Session 48.7. Green ray (the heart center) is the first energy center capable of holding the other without needing to annihilate, possess, or control. It is the gateway to higher-density work and the prerequisite for the density transition Earth is currently undergoing. 14. “Pentagon Pete Hegseth Prays for ‘Overwhelming Violence' at Christian Service,” The Daily Beast, March 26, 2026. Hegseth's pastor Brooks Potteiger appeared on the Christian nationalist podcast Reformation Red Pill, where co-host Joshua Haymes said of Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico: “I pray that God kills him.” Potteiger responded: “Right. Right. We want him crucified with Christ.” 15. For the Francis/Sultan encounter as counter-image to the crusader theology, see Doug Scott, “The Terran Self at War with Itself,” cosmicchrist.net, March 2026. The historical encounter occurred in 1219 during the Fifth Crusade at Damietta, Egypt. 16. Exodus 20:7. The Hebrew nasa means “to lift, carry, bear” rather than simply “to speak.” The word shav (translated “in vain”) means emptiness, vanity, falsehood, worthlessness of conduct. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin argued that the more literal translation—“you shall not carry” the name of YHWH—explains why the commandment ranks alongside “You shall not murder.” See Joseph Telushkin, A Code of Jewish Ethics, vol. 1 (New York: Bell Tower, 2006). See also “The Innocence of God: The Third Commandment,” Tikkun 31, no. 2 (April 2016). 17. David Klinghoffer, Shattered Tablets: Why We Ignore the Ten Commandments at Our Peril (New York: Doubleday, 2007), cited in “Watch Your Language: The Third Commandment,” The Dayton Jewish Observer, May 2010. 18. Carmen Joy Imes, in conversation with Kirk E. Miller, “What Does It Mean to Take God's Name in Vain?,” Logos, March 2025. Imes connects the priestly bearing of God's name on Aaron's garments (Exodus 28:12, 29) to Israel's commissioning as a nation of priests (Exodus 19:5–6), arguing that “carrying God's name” means representing God's character faithfully through one's actions. 19. “The Innocence of God: The Third Commandment: Building the Religious Counterculture,” Tikkun 31, no. 2 (April 2016). The article notes that the second half of the Third Commandment—“for God will not acquit a person who takes God's name in vain”—uses language found in no other commandment, including the prohibitions against murder and adultery.

What if the Old Testament you grew up reading isn't as fixed as you think?In this episode, we dive into the real evidence behind the Septuagint (LXX), the Masoretic Text (MT), and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)—and what they reveal about the state of Scripture in the first century.From Goliath's height to the missing verses of Esther, from Genesis chronologies to Stephen's speech in Acts of the Apostles, we uncover a world where multiple textual traditions existed side by side—and sometimes disagreed.Was the Septuagint just a translation… or does it preserve an older form of the Hebrew text?Did the New Testament authors rely on a different Bible than the one we use today?And what do the Dead Sea Scrolls actually prove?This episode challenges the assumption that the Old Testament was ever a single, settled text—and shows why that matters for how we understand Scripture today.If you'd like to donate to our ministry or be a monthly partner that receives newsletters and one on one discussions with Dr. Stephen Boyce, here's a link: https://give.tithe.ly/?formId=6381a2ee-b82f-42a7-809e-6b733cec05a7

If you've listened to this show for any amount of time, you know what the Septuagint is (if you haven't, don't worry- it's just the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). But do you know where that name came from? Or the legend of its creation? This episode, we're diving deep into the lore of this very important document, and yes- there is LORE! The most important of which is a very long letter from a man calling himself Aristeas, which tells a fascinating (and spurious) tale of the Septuagint's origin. What do we know about this letter? And how much credence should we give it? Then, we're diving into that elaborate system of laws and rules known as the Covenant Code. Specifically, the part where we learn how the ancient Israelites were supposed to handle an ownership dispute. What does it mean when it says they were supposed to "come before God" to decide the case? How were they supposed to do that? How was it decided? What if it didn't work??? ---- For early access to an ad-free version of every episode of Data Over Dogma, exclusive content, and the opportunity to support our work, please consider becoming a monthly patron at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/DataOverDogma⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠      Follow us on the various social media places: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/DataOverDogmaPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.twitter.com/data_over_dogma⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Have you ordered Dan McClellan's New York Times bestselling book ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Bible Says So⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ yet??? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is the name “Jesus” actually a hidden reference to Zeus… or is that just internet mythology gone viral?In this episode, we break down one of the most controversial claims circulating online — that the name of Jesus is pagan in origin and secretly means “Hail Zeus.” But when you actually follow the linguistic, historical, and biblical trail… the narrative starts to collapse.Merchandise: https://freetherabbits.myshopify.comBuy Me A Coffee: DonateFollow: Website | Instagram | X | FacebookWatch: YouTube | RumbleMusic: YouTube | Spotify | Apple MusicFilms: https://merkelfilms.com Email: freetherabbitspodcast@gmail.comDistributed by: merkel.mediaOutro Music:Joel Thomas – Psy-OpYouTube | Spotify | Apple MusicFollow the ShowIf you enjoy deep investigations into biblical mysteries, secret societies, hidden symbolism, conspiracy theories and ancient esoteric traditions, be sure to follow the podcast and share this episode.Topics Discussed In This Episode:Jesus name meaning, Yeshua vs Jesus, Iesous pronunciation, hail Zeus myth, Zeus vs Jesus debate, Greek translation Bible, Constantine Christianity theory, Alexander Hislop Two Babylons, sacred name movement, Hebrew Roots movement, false cognates linguistics, Bible name translation history, Acts 4:12 meaning, Matthew 1:21 explanation, Jesus vs Yahusha debate, origin of Jesus name, Koine Greek New Testament, Septuagint names, Christian apologetics, viral conspiracy breakdown

Doug Van Dorn returns to the Blurry Con stage for his third year and delivers what he calls the most important work he's ever presented. Recorded live at Blurry Con 3, Doug walks through a detailed textual case showing how second-century rabbis systematically altered key Old Testament passages to undermine the supernatural worldview of Genesis 6, Psalm 82, Deuteronomy 32, and Psalm 110. He traces how "sons of God" became "sons of the rulers," how "gods" became "the mighty," how 15 words were removed from the Song of Moses, and how the number 70 was strategically swapped for 75 in the genealogies to sever the connection between Melchizedek and Jesus. Every change, Doug argues, was deliberate. And every change targeted the same thing: the deity of Christ.Doug connects the dots between the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masoretic text, and the Babylonian Talmud to show that the very arguments many Christians use today against the angelic view of Genesis 6 trace back to sources that were created to discredit Jesus. He unpacks Justin Martyr's confrontation with Trifo, the rabbinical curse on anyone who called them "sons of God," and the shocking language the Talmud uses about Jesus himself. This is textual criticism with teeth, and Doug doesn't hold back. If you've ever wondered why your study Bible reads the way it does on these passages, this talk will rearrange your bookshelf.Want to listen to this episode and a whole backlog of members-only episodes? Check out the community and perks of being a Blurry Creatures member at https://blurrycreatures.com/pages/members.Check out Doug's new book, The Battle for the Bible's Truth: Genesis 6, Jesus, and the Second Century Plot to Deny the Messiah. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A few episodes ago, I mentioned the two distinct literary traditions behind the OT or Tanakh). Most important is the rabbinic Hebrew language tradition, known as the Masoretic tradition. The other tradition is the Greek language bible, known as the Septuagint. This was translated from some unknown Hebrew original.  In many instances, the Septuagint draws upon ancient Hebrew documents that differ from those used by the rabbis. While the two traditions are in broad agreement, sometimes they diverge quite significantly. One of those places is in the origin story of King David. In this episode, Gil Kidron of A Podcast of Biblical Proportions and I explore these differences.  

Tonight, in a world full of skepticism and shifting truth, we explored why the Bible is both historically reliable and spiritually transformative. From real historical rulers mentioned in Luke 3:1 to non-Christian historians who confirmed Jesus' crucifixion, the Bible stands on solid evidence. We also saw how manuscripts like the Septuagint and the Dead Sea […]

Tonight, in a world full of skepticism and shifting truth, we explored why the Bible is both historically reliable and spiritually transformative. From real historical rulers mentioned in Luke 3:1 to non-Christian historians who confirmed Jesus' crucifixion, the Bible stands on solid evidence. We also saw how manuscripts like the Septuagint and the Dead Sea […]

In this episode, Dr. Stephen Boyce explores the origin and historical development of the Septuagint (LXX), the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. We examine the ancient traditions surrounding its creation under Ptolemy II Philadelphus, including the well-known account preserved in the Letter of Aristeas and later repeated by Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. We also discuss how the translation likely developed historically within the Jewish community of Alexandria as Greek became the common language of the Mediterranean world.Along the way, we look at key textual examples showing the importance of the Septuagint for biblical studies and early Christianity, including the famous textual variant in Gospel of Luke 10 concerning whether Jesus sent out seventy or seventy-two disciples, and the missing “nun” verse in Psalm 145 preserved in the Septuagint and confirmed by Hebrew manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls. These examples highlight how the Septuagint sometimes preserves readings that reflect an earlier textual tradition than the later Masoretic Text. This episode helps listeners understand why the Septuagint became the primary Old Testament of the early Church and why it continues to play a crucial role in biblical scholarship today.If you'd like to donate to our ministry or be a monthly partner that receives newsletters and one on one discussions with Dr. Stephen Boyce, here's a link: https://give.tithe.ly/?formId=6381a2ee-b82f-42a7-809e-6b733cec05a7

Jerome and the Septuagint? Early Church and the cannon? Gnostics and Mary? This and more on Open Line Wednesday with Fr. Mitch Pacwa.

Psalm 31:19-24, Leviticus 21:1-22:33, Mark 15:1-32. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, this sacred name (YHWH) is translated *Kyrios* (Lord) It really is quite extraordinary, therefore, that the New Testament writers (who were Jewish monotheists) made this fundamental Christian affirmation that ‘*Jesus is Lord'* (*Kyrios*) (Romans 10:9; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Acts 2:36) and that *our Lord* has been *crucified for us*

Psalm 31:21-24, Leviticus 22:31-33, Mark 15:1-32. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, this sacred name (YHWH) is translated *Kyrios* (Lord) It really is quite extraordinary, therefore, that the New Testament writers (who were Jewish monotheists) made this fundamental Christian affirmation that ‘*Jesus is Lord'* (*Kyrios*) (Romans 10:9; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Acts 2:36) and that *our Lord* has been *crucified for us*

Psalm 31:21-24, Leviticus 22:31-33, Mark 15:1-32. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, this sacred name (YHWH) is translated *Kyrios* (Lord) It really is quite extraordinary, therefore, that the New Testament writers (who were Jewish monotheists) made this fundamental Christian affirmation that ‘*Jesus is Lord'* (*Kyrios*) (Romans 10:9; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Acts 2:36) and that *our Lord* has been *crucified for us*

Ever wondered why some books are missing from the Bible?

When Luke records Jesus commanding the Twelve to take nothing for the journey, neither staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money, he activates a deliberate stripping that recalls the scriptural logic of exile as exposure. The Hebrew root ג-ל-ה (gimel-lamed-heh) can function as “to uncover” or, by extension, “to go into exile,” linking displacement with nakedness in the prophetic texts themselves. There, exile is repeatedly portrayed as being uncovered, stripped naked, and shamed before the nations. Nakedness is not merely physical but signals dispossession and removal from the land. In Luke 8, the Gerasene demoniac embodies this condition, naked, outside the city among the tombs, cut off from communal and tribal life, a living figure of exposure in exile. When Jesus restores him, he is clothed and seated in his right mind, and he is commanded to return home to bear fruit as a witness, with nothing in hand but the knowledge of his sins and the command of God. Immediately afterward, in Luke 9, Jesus sends the Twelve out divested of staff and supplies, stripped of institutional and tribal supports, and of any authority derived from them. Though not naked in body, they are stripped of the signs of power, protection, affiliation, and provision. Both the demoniac and the Twelve thus reflect the same scriptural function: exile as nakedness, and exposure out in the open as the precondition of restoration for mission.ῥάβδος (rhabdos) / מ-ט-ה (mem-ṭet-heh)Staff; tribe, delegated power. From the triliteral root נ-ט-ה (nun-ṭet-heh), to stretch out, to extend, to incline.“And you shall take in your hand this staff [מַטֶּה (maṭṭeh)] with which you shall do the signs.” (Exodus 4:17)The staff represents what is stretched out. In Exodus, it symbolizes the instrument through which delegated authority operates, acting as an extended hand. In Numbers 17, each leader brings his staff, which denotes his tribe. Extension here signifies lineage: what is stretched out becomes a branch, and that branch becomes a tribe. Thus, the rod is not just wood but a visible symbol of authority and continuity, indicating the ordered descent and delegated power.ῥάβδος (rhabdos) / ש-ב-ט (šin-bet-ṭet)Rod, scepter, tribe. From the triliteral root ש-ב-ט (šin-bet-ṭet), associated with striking and ruling.“You shall break them with a rod [בְּשֵׁבֶט (be-šebeṭ)] of iron.” (Psalm 2:9)The rod is the instrument of rule. It disciplines, enforces, and governs. In Proverbs, it corrects; in Isaiah, it becomes the rod of divine anger; in royal psalms, it signifies sovereign authority. The same word names a tribe, linking governance with structure. The rod is therefore not merely a stick but embodied jurisdiction, the visible sign of judicial and royal power.ῥάβδος (rhabdos) / ק-ל-ל (qof-lamed-lamed)Rod; stick; branch, to be light, slight.“And the Philistine said to David, ‘Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks [בַּמַּקְלוֹת (ba-maqqelot)]?'” (1 Samuel 17:43)This rod belongs to the field, not the throne. It is the shepherd's implement, the ordinary support of the traveler. In Genesis 30 Jacob uses rods in the tending of flocks; in Samuel David carries them into battle as a shepherd confronting a warrior. The stick here signifies pastoral presence rather than institutional authority. It is wood in the hand of the lowly, not the emblem of a court.ῥάβδος (rhabdos) / ש-ע-ן (šin-ʿayin-nun)Staff of support. From the verbal root ש-ע-ן (šin-ʿayin-nun), to lean upon, to rely.“Behold, you are trusting in Egypt, that broken staff [מִשְׁעֶנֶת (mišʿenet)] of reed.” (Isaiah 36:6)The staff here is what one leans upon. It represents reliance, alliance, and structural backing. When it breaks, dependence collapses, and the individual who is leaning on it falls. The rod becomes a metaphor for political trust and misplaced confidence. It is not an instrument of striking but of support, the symbol of that upon which stability rests.ῥάβδος (rhabdos) / שַׁרְבִיט (šarbiṭ)Scepter; royal staff. Likely a Persian (modern-day Iran) loanword associated with imperial authority.“If the king holds out the golden scepter [שַׁרְבִיט (šarbiṭ)] that is in his hand, he shall live.” (Esther 4:11)In Esther, the rod is sovereignty compressed into a single gesture. Life and death depend on whether it is extended. It is not the shepherd's staff, not the tribal symbol, not the rod of discipline. It is ceremonial kingship embodied in gold. The scepter draws the line between execution and mercy, exclusion and acceptance. Authority is visible, concentrated in the king's hand.But does the king's own life ultimately matter? A wise leader knows that his life is of little value because it does not belong to him. As Jesus commands, the sign of God is neither the owner, the support, nor the strength of God's many peoples. There is no god but God. Scripture repeatedly shows, through Persian rulers like Cyrus and Xerxes, that real control belongs neither to Israel, nor to the king, nor to the empire. Sovereignty belongs to God alone, who governs history itself, directing kings as easily as he directs the sun and the moon, according to his plan.πήρα (pera)Shepherd's bag.“And he took his staff [τὴν ῥάβδον (ten rabdon)] in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook and put them in the shepherd's bag [εἰς τὴν πήραν τὴν ποιμενικήν (eis ten peran ten poimeniken)]…” (1 Samuel 17:40 LXX)David advances toward Goliath carrying two things: the rabdos (ῥάβδος) and the pera (πήρα). The rabdos is the shepherd's staff, the maqel (מַקֵל), a rod in the hand of one who tends flocks. The pera is the shepherd's satchel, the container of stones and the place of stored provision. One extends the arm; the other holds what sustains the strike. This is the only occurrence of pera (πήρα) in the Septuagint.The five stones evoke Torah, the Five Books. Their smoothness carries the root ח-ל-ק (ḥet-lamed-qof) / ح-ل-ق (ḥāʾ-lām-qāf). In Hebrew, ḥalaq is to divide, to apportion, to allot. In Arabic, ḥalaqa is to shave, to make smooth, to strip bare. These are not separate functions. To smooth a stone is to shape it by removal. To allot land is to cut it from the whole. The triliteral holds division and preparation together.The brook itself sharpens the resonance. Naḥal (נַחַל), from the root נ־ח־ל (nun-ḥet-lamed) / ن-ح-ل (nūn-ḥāʾ-lām), in Hebrew is a wadi, a seasonal stream. But the same consonants in both languages yield naḥalah (נַחֲלָה), naḥala (نَحَلَ) / niḥla (نِحْلَة) inheritance, endowment, gift, or allotted possession. Water and land converge in the root. David reaches into the stream and draws out inheritance. Surat al-Naḥl سورة النحل refers to “The Bee,” an animal associated with provision, honey, and divinely guided producti...

In this Bible Scholar Reacts episode, Dr. T. Michael W. Halcomb responds to a viral video claiming that Paul never commands husbands to lead their wives and that the Greek word kephale (“head”) only means “source,” not authority.Is that linguistically accurate?Dr. Halcomb affirms what's right in the argument — but also explains where the Greek is being stretched beyond what the evidence can support. Looking at Ephesians 5, the Septuagint, Judges 11:11, Isaiah 7:8, and Colossians 2:10, this episode explores how context determines meaning — and why absolute linguistic claims can be dangerous.Paul doesn't destroy the metaphor of headship. He transforms it.#bible #podcast #biblestudy #faith #jesus #christ #scholar #theology #education #reaction #react #reactionvideo #viral #viralvideo #marriage #greek #leadership #husbandwife #husband #scripture #instagram #instareels ***GlossaHouse resources are available at our website! - https://glossahouse.com/✏️ ***Sign up for classes with GlossaHouse U - https://glossahouse.com/pages/classes

Friday Bible Study (2/20/26) // Ezra 8:1-20 (ESV) // *Genealogy of Those Who Returned with Ezra*// 8 These are the heads of their fathers' houses, and this is the genealogy of those who went up with me from Babylonia, in the reign of Artaxerxes the king: 2 Of the sons of Phinehas, Gershom. Of the sons of Ithamar, Daniel. Of the sons of David, Hattush. 3 Of the sons of Shecaniah, who was of the sons of Parosh, Zechariah, with whom were registered 150 men. 4 Of the sons of Pahath-moab, Eliehoenai the son of Zerahiah, and with him 200 men. 5 Of the sons of Zattu,[a] Shecaniah the son of Jahaziel, and with him 300 men. 6 Of the sons of Adin, Ebed the son of Jonathan, and with him 50 men. 7 Of the sons of Elam, Jeshaiah the son of Athaliah, and with him 70 men. 8 Of the sons of Shephatiah, Zebadiah the son of Michael, and with him 80 men. 9 Of the sons of Joab, Obadiah the son of Jehiel, and with him 218 men. 10 Of the sons of Bani,[b] Shelomith the son of Josiphiah, and with him 160 men. 11 Of the sons of Bebai, Zechariah, the son of Bebai, and with him 28 men. 12 Of the sons of Azgad, Johanan the son of Hakkatan, and with him 110 men. 13 Of the sons of Adonikam, those who came later, their names being Eliphelet, Jeuel, and Shemaiah, and with them 60 men. 14 Of the sons of Bigvai, Uthai and Zaccur, and with them 70 men.Ezra Sends for Levites15 I gathered them to the river that runs to Ahava, and there we camped three days. As I reviewed the people and the priests, I found there none of the sons of Levi. 16 Then I sent for Eliezer, Ariel, Shemaiah, Elnathan, Jarib, Elnathan, Nathan, Zechariah, and Meshullam, leading men, and for Joiarib and Elnathan, who were men of insight, 17 and sent them to Iddo, the leading man at the place Casiphia, telling them what to say to Iddo and his brothers and[c] the temple servants at the place Casiphia, namely, to send us ministers for the house of our God. 18 And by the good hand of our God on us, they brought us a man of discretion, of the sons of Mahli the son of Levi, son of Israel, namely Sherebiah with his sons and kinsmen, 18; 19 also Hashabiah, and with him Jeshaiah of the sons of Merari, with his kinsmen and their sons, 20; 20 besides 220 of the temple servants, whom David and his officials had set apart to attend the Levites. These were all mentioned by name.Footnotesa. Ezra 8:5 Septuagint; Hebrew lacks of Zattub. Ezra 8: 10 Septuagint; Hebrew lacks Banic. Ezra 8: 17 Hebrew lacks andWebsite: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mbchicago.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FOLLOW USFacebook: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  / mbc.chicago  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  / mbc.chicago  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  / mbc.chicago  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TO SUPPORT US Zelle to: info@mbchicago.org Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mbchicago.org/give⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Venmo: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://venmo.com/mbchurch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ DAF Donations: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://every.org/mbc.chicago⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ PayPal: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://paypal.com/donate/?hosted_but...⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

In this episode of Made to be a Kingdom, Fathers Harry Linsenbigler and Anthony Perkins return to Christ's words in Matthew 16–18 to explore what Scripture reveals about the nature of the Church. Reading the Gospel through its original biblical and Septuagint context, they reflect on Christ as the anointed Petra, the gathering of the scattered people of Israel, and the Church as the place where God restores His flock from among the nations. Drawing on Micah's prophecy (2:6-13), the language of gates and mountains, and the Paschal victory over death, the conversation shows how Orthodox ecclesiology is rooted not in abstract authority, but in Christ Himself—the Anointed Rock who leads His people through the gates of hell into life. Along the way, they highlight how Scripture interprets Scripture, why the Church understands herself as the restored Israel, and how Pascha stands at the heart of what it means for the Church to be built, gathered, and led by Christ.

Ryan Pitterson is back in the building after 200-plus episodes away, and he came with a bombshell. His third book, The Earth Before Adam, completes the trilogy that began with Judgment of the Nephilim and The Final Nephilim, and it takes us all the way back before the story we thought was the beginning. Ryan lays out the biblical case for the gap theory, arguing that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 lies the entire history of Lucifer's angelic kingdom on earth, its corruption, and its catastrophic judgment. Using the original Hebrew, the Septuagint, the Targums, Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14, Jeremiah 4, and 2 Peter 3, he builds a detailed picture of a pre-Adamic world that was beautiful, inhabited, and ultimately destroyed by what he calls the first great tribulation.The conversation then rockets forward through the scroll of time as Ryan connects the dots between the ancient rebellion and the end times. He reveals the parallels between Absalom and Lucifer, unpacks how the Tower of Babel was an attempt to unlock a supernatural power through human unification, and explains how the Antichrist's global system is Satan's third and final attempt to harness that same power through AI, neural technology, and the Mark of the Beast. Along the way, the guys dig into pre-Adamic humanoids, dinosaurs, the cosmic trial playing out in the heavenly courtroom, and why this understanding of deep biblical history is so important. The end is the beginning, and the beginning is the end. This episode is sponsored by: https://homechef.com/blurry — Get 50% off plus free shipping on your first box & free dessert for life! https://rocketmoney.com/blurry — Let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster! https://ruffgreens.com — Get a free Jumpstart Trial bag with discount code BLURRY at checkout. - Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Messianic Apologetics editor John McKee reviews the Greek term proselutos, and whether in the Septuagint it means a formal proselyte convert to Judaism, or had an earlier usage designating a sojourner. This is then followed by a review of important stories and issues from the past day or so, largely witnessed on social media.

Where did the Bible come from—and how do we know we can trust it? Rebecca is joined by textual scholars John Meade and Peter Gurry to explore how Scripture was written, copied, translated, and recognized as canon. From the Septuagint to the Apocrypha, they unpack the Bible's complex history—and why that history strengthens rather than weakens Christian confidence in God's Word.Follow Peter:XFollow John:XUse code IF to receive 30% off your copy of The ‘If' That Changes Everything at thegoodbook.com.Visit MoodyPublishers.com or find The Rekindled Heart wherever books are sold.Find Digital Liturgies wherever books are sold, or visit crossway.org/digitalliturgiesbook to get 30% off with a free Crossway+ account.Watch Us on YouTubeSign up for weekly emails at RebeccaMcLaughlin.org/SubscribeFollow Us on Instagram and XProduced by ⁠⁠⁠⁠The Good Podcast Co.⁠⁠⁠⁠

www.jeffriddle.net

This is part four of the Restoration Theology class. The Old Testament, also called the Hebrew Bible, is a collection of 39 books written before the time of Christ. Today you’re going to learn about the three major manuscript families of the OT: (1) the Masoretic Text, (2) the Septuagint, and (3) the Samaritan Pentateuch. Like last time, we’ll go through several of the most significant manuscripts while also covering some of the most exciting stories of discovery. My goal here is simply to familiarize you with the texts upon which our Old Testaments are based, so that when you go to build doctrines later, you’ll be able to understand why textual differences matter and how to navigate them effectively.   Listen on Spotify   Listen on Apple Podcasts —— Links —— Check out the other episodes of the Restoration Theology class Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Facebook group, follow on X @RestitutioSF or Instagram @Sean.P.Finnegan Leave a 90 second voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play it out on the air Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Get Finnegan’s book, Kingdom Journey to learn about God’s kingdom coming on earth as well as the story of how Christianity lost this pearl of great price. Get the transcript of this episode Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library.

Ancient Roots of Life Episode 33 In this episode, JT and Josh discuss recent weather events, including a snowstorm that impacted their areas. They delve into the Septuagint and its insights from Leviticus, particularly focusing on the symbolism of mythical creatures like the Griffin. The conversation shifts to cultural reflections in modern media, exploring feminine archetypes and the cyclical nature of history, good and evil. They conclude by examining the influence of media on perception, particularly in relation to movies and myths. In this conversation, the speakers delve into the wisdom of Solomon, exploring the meaning behind the phrase 'nothing new under the sun.' They discuss historical perspectives on knowledge and the preservation of wisdom, particularly in relation to the commandments of God. The conversation shifts to the character of Metatron and the nature of creation, before concluding with an exploration of the themes presented in the series 'His Dark Materials,' drawing parallels to ancient myths and modern interpretations.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/jt-s-mix-tape--6579902/support.Please support our sponsor Modern Roots Life: https://modernrootslife.com/?bg_ref=rVWsBoOfcFJESUS SAID THERE WOULD BE HATERS Shirts: https://jtfollowsjc.com/product-category/mens-shirts/WOMEN'S SHIRTS: https://jtfollowsjc.com/product-category/womens-shirts/JT's Hats: https://jtfollowsjc.com/product-category/hats/

In traditional Trinitarian language, there are three persons in the one "being/essence" of God (as expressed in the Greek noun "ousia"). However, "ousia" does not mean "essence" or "being" in the New Testament, nor in the Septuagint. This week's episode examines how the meaning of "ousia" evolved over time to justify the post-biblical doctrine of a tri-personal God. To view the video version of this episode, go here: https://youtu.be/6mIOx6qqK8I            Visit Amazon to buy your copy of A Systematic Theology of the Early Church: https://amzn.to/47jldOc    Visit Amazon to buy your copy of Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John: https://amzn.to/3JBflHb     Visit Amazon to buy your copy of The Son of God: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus: https://amzn.to/43DPYey    To support this podcast, donate here: https://www.paypal.me/10mintruthtalks    Episode notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ompe3bYg2xuci3y4mzSFLRPdyfaJoOT78umtJksdZKA/edit?usp=sharing  Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BiblicalUnitarianPodcast        Follow on Instagram: https://Instagram.com/biblicalunitarianpodcast  Follow on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/OneGodPodcast  

Welcome to Day 2786 of Wisdom-Trek, and thank you for joining me. This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom – Theology Thursday – The Unintended Consequences of Replacing Yahweh with “God” Wisdom-Trek Podcast Script - Day 2786 Welcome to Wisdom-Trek with Gramps!   I am Guthrie Chamberlain, and we are on Day 2786 of our Trek.   The Purpose of Wisdom-Trek is to create a legacy of wisdom, to seek out discernment and insights, and to boldly grow where few have chosen to grow before. Our current series of Theology Thursday lessons is written by theologian and teacher John Daniels. I have found that his lessons are short, easy to understand, doctrinally sound, and applicable to all who desire to learn more of God's Word. John's lessons can be found on his website   theologyinfive.com.   Today's lesson is titled The Unintended Consequences of Replacing Yahweh with “God”. In the pages of Scripture, the God of Israel reveals Himself by name, Yahweh, a name that marks His identity, His covenant, and His absolute uniqueness among all other spiritual beings. Yet somewhere in the history of Jewish and Christian tradition, this name was quietly replaced. Where once God was named, now He is merely titled. Yahweh became “the LORD.” Eventually, even “the LORD” gave way to “God,” a generic and universal term that can apply to almost any religious conception of the divine. What began as an effort to show reverence or accommodate translation has produced serious theological consequences. The loss of God's name has led to a distorted view of monotheism, erased key distinctions between Yahweh and other spiritual beings, and enabled poor apologetic compromises, such as the claim that “Allah is just the Arabic word for God.” It has also obscured the meaning of the First Commandment and weakened the Church's understanding of its own covenant relationship. This article traces how we got here and why recovering the name Yahweh is essential to restoring biblical clarity. The First Segment is: From Name to Title: How Yahweh Was Replaced. The divine name Yahweh (יהוה), also called the Tetragrammaton, appears over 6,800 times in the Hebrew Bible. In Exodus 3:15, God declares, “This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.” Yet despite this, a tradition developed during the Second Temple Period in which Jews refrained from pronouncing the divine name aloud. Instead, they substituted it with Adonai (“Lord”) during public readings. This practice, rooted in caution and reverence, carried over into Greek and Latin translations of the Bible. The Septuagint rendered Yahweh as Kyrios (“Lord”), and the Latin Vulgate followed suit with Dominus. English Bibles later preserved this substitution, using the stylized “LORD” in small caps, often without explaining to readers that a name was being replaced. As Christianity spread into the Gentile world, the name Yahweh virtually disappeared from common use. The God of the Bible came to be referred to simply as “God,” a word that is not a name at all, but a title. And not a unique title either, “God” can refer to any number of deities across religious systems or even to philosophical abstractions. In trying to show reverence or universality, the Church began to erase the very name by which the true God had distinguished Himself. The second segment is: The Problem with “God”: A Category, Not a Character This shift might seem minor, but it represents a profound theological error. In Hebrew, the word elohim is used to...

In traditional Trinitarian language, the one being of God consists of three persons, as expressed in the Greek noun "hypostasis." However, "hypostasis" does not mean "person" in the New Testament, nor in the Septuagint. This week's episode explores how the meaning of "hypostasis" changed over time in order to justify the post-biblical doctrine of a tri-personal God.  To view the video version of this episode, go here: https://youtu.be/28sXUnm5hdw           Visit Amazon to buy your copy of A Systematic Theology of the Early Church: https://amzn.to/47jldOc    Visit Amazon to buy your copy of Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John: https://amzn.to/3JBflHb     Visit Amazon to buy your copy of The Son of God: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus: https://amzn.to/43DPYey    To support this podcast, donate here: https://www.paypal.me/10mintruthtalks    Episode notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CI8TfHD607d5rlFSaWXly6DhmozGLALk-bCU94I4DqE/edit?usp=sharing   Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BiblicalUnitarianPodcast        Follow on Instagram: https://Instagram.com/biblicalunitarianpodcast  Follow on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/OneGodPodcast  

Watch this episode ad-free & uncensored on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjones Dr. Ammon Hillman is a Ph.D. classicist specializing in Ancient Greek, Roman medicine & pharmacy. Dr. Hillman was investigated by the Vatican for demon possession while teaching as a professor of Classical Languages. Dr. Luke Gorton is also a Ph.D. classicist specializing in religions of the ancient Mediterranean, Greek mythology & ancient magic. On this episode, Hillman & Gorton debate ancient greek literature regarding Jesus Christ's shameful act in the 'Greater Questions of Mary', the ORIGINAL language of the old testament & the origins of the word "Christ". SPONSORS https://kalshi.com/r/DANNY - Click the link or download the Kalshi App & use code DANNY to sign up & trade today. https://meetfabric.com/danny - Join thousands of parents who trust Fabric to help protect their family. Apply today in just minutes. https://amentara.com/go/DJ - Use the code DJ22 for 22% off your first order. https://rag-bone.com - Use code DANNY & get 20% off sitewide. https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP - Use code DJP for 20% off. EPISODE LINKS Ammon Hillman:  @ladybabylon666 Luke Gorton:  @drlukegorton FOLLOW DANNY JONES https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones https://twitter.com/jonesdanny OUTLINE 00:00 - The study of dead languages 05:08 - Ancient magic 10:30 - Ammon's expulsion from academia 12:43 - how Ammon's dissertation was censored 18:06 - Why Ammon abandoned Christianity 20:54 - Classicists vs. linguists vs. bible scholars 26:58 - Archeologists & linguists working with classicists 30:49 - The problem with bible scholars 36:29 - Biggest misconceptions about the bible 39:18 -When the gospels were written 46:50 - How much ancient literature has disappeared 49:18 - The Greek Magical Papyri 52:47 - Why Greek was the dominant ancient language 01:01:53 - The greater questions of Mary 01:07:15 - Jesus' shameful act 01:10:59 - The d*ck analogy 01:15:47 - Scholiast's definition of αἰσχρότης 01:24:20 - Translation evidence of eating Jesus' semen 01:29:19 - Who was Jesus & did he exist? 01:35:58 - Paul's letter to the Corinthians 01:41:13 - How Paul survived a poisonous viper bite 01:47:47 - Ancient use of drugged wines 01:50:13 - Original language of the Septuagint 01:54:06 - Greek translations that lose their meaning 01:58:42 - Oldest pieces of Hebrew literature 02:04:17 - Why ancient Hebrew texts don't exist 02:14:13 - Luke's theory on the Septuagint authorship 02:16:29 - The language Jesus spoke 02:23:39 - Greek vs. Aramaic quotes from Jesus 02:30:08 - Back formation of language 02:34:20 - The problem with Ammon's methodology 02:39:11 - The "sounds like" linguistics principle 02:45:02 - Origin of the word "Christ" 02:53:57 - Different forms of the Greek word "Christ" 02:58:46 - Analogy for "Christ" as "anointed one" 03:08:52 - When Jews adopted the Greek language 03:16:01 - True origin of the Greek word "cristos" 03:21:42 - "Jewish" Greek vs. traditional Greek 03:26:33 - The magi (three wise men) 03:29:03 - Discriminating between historical texts 03:35:23 - The Isaiah Scroll & the Masoretic Text similarities Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices