Support BFA

Leave a Reply

  • Satan temping Y’shua in giving Him the kingdom didn’t seem like a temptation, So I checked the translation. what if the high and lofty mountain was mount Moriah, were Isaac was passed over and not killed by his father.
    World was an orderly arrangement, Like the Aaronic Priesthood, and it’s glory. Was the temptation, Why die for the Melchizedek Preisthood?

  • Regarding bread returning from the rock as opposed to the rock becoming bread:
    Nehemia brought out that this temptation mirrored the incident at Massah, per Deuteronomy 6;16. Where water gushed from a rock. Keeping this image in mind, the usage of the Hebrew word for “return” makes more sense. Jesus was being tempted to speak a command to the rock which would cause it to issue forth bread. Perhaps the word “dispense”, like an ATM or a vending machine, would be a more precise translation, if the Hebrew allows.

    Thanks for another thought provoking episode!

  • How dö I get access to the plusepisodes?

  • More thoughts as I reflect on episode 9. Yeshua’s temptation/testing in the wilderness, what form it took and how it worked, will be interpreted in a way that depends on what we believe about Yeshua’s human nature.
    He was tempted in all ways such as we are. (Heb 4.15). However, those who believe “Jesus is God” will interpret differently to those who believe Yeshua, although the Son of YHVH, was a man who also had “adamic nature” i.e. yetzer hara and yetzer tov. Yeshua sowed to yetzer tov and obeyed the commandments of torah in love perfectly, yet was still able to be tested.
    Because doctrines, ideas, themes are all biblically linked and do need to come together coherently, the discussion of the adversary raises a lot more issues.

  • I’m a premium member and am not able to access the plus programs. Please give me access.

  • Brilliant! Right on with the adversary.
    What you are demonstrating from the biblical texts is exactly the teaching of the Christadelphians. I was with the Cdns for 16 years and learned and understood this teaching.
    Having been in churches for a while after Cdns, some Zoroastrianism has crept in. I feel like I’m back on track. Thankyou/

  • Great episode. Your conversation regarding “satan” was very thought provoking and I appreciate it, even though I don’t completely agree with all your analysis of “satan.” I definitely agree that a lot of the theology of mainstream Christianity has a distorted view of “satan,” in that he is responsible for everything evil and he operates completely outside of YHVH’s authority. This is not the view of all Christians though. Many Christians do see “satan” as being opposed to YHVH but God restrains “satan” and he can’t do anything outside YHVH’s authority. I agree with this view pretty much but I appreciate different perspectives (also, you shouldn’t fire someone for denying “satan!”).
    I think the NT’s concepts of “satan” should have been looked into more deeply, and maybe you’ll be getting into them in future episodes. Some verses to consider would be Mat. 12:24-28; 25:41; Mark 4:15; Luke 13:16; 22:3, 31; Acts 26:18; 1 Thess. 2:18; Rev. 12:9.
    Finally, I’d like to comment on “satan” in 1 Chr. 21:1, (Pedro’s analysis of this verse is very good) which seems to me to not be referring to “satan,” but perhaps to “an adversary,” a human adversary. Perhaps a foreign king whom YHVH is using to entice David, since there is no definite article attached to the word “satan” (see 1 Kings 11:4 for example).
    Keep up the good work and YeHoVaH bless you.

  • Let me start off by saying good show…Keith, but Nehemiah I have to challenge your interpretation. For one in Numbers 22:22 it does not say in the Hebrew text the form of Ha Satan as it does in the book of Job, the fact that only in Job and in the book of Zech is the Hebrew term ha Satan used with the Hebrew article mind you. The word with the article means that the meaning of the word should receive prominence. and it’s funny how you link it with the angel of Yehovah in the book of Numbers 22:22. When in fact all is says that the angel took a adversarial position, and NOT that HE was THE ADVERSARY or HA SATAN, As you can see from its generic form of the word Satan anybody even God can take that position, in a generic sense, and NOT that he was HA SATAN. By adding the article in the Hebrew text, the writer is telling you that this Satan or adversary is not to be taken in the generic form, but giving us a clue a hint. That this is someone very different, he is given a title, The other point I noticed too that you quote 1 Chronicles 21:1 and you link with 2 Samuel 24:1 and you say that the Satan here is Yehovah or Yehovah’s angel. well the text is ambiguous in 2 Samuel 24:1 it says HE incited David. in Hebrew its in the third person masculine singular form. As you recall Nehemiah in Hebrew there is no indirect speech, do you remember Nehemiah you touched this subject a while back on book of Malachi 2:16, where some English bibles change the Hebrew text to read it as “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, yet in the Hebrew text ..The verb שָׂנֵא (sane’) appears to be a third person form, “he hates,” meaning not Yehovah but someone else. the HE there is talking about the men of Israel who hated to divorce. So the same can be said of how 2 Samuel 24:1 how it is constructed, it says ..He incited David against them, you see in the English language we have indirect speech, The He is not Yehovah. Like you said Many interpreters and translations render the Hebrew SATAN as a proper name here, “Satan” (NEB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). However, the Hebrew term SATAN, which as you stated means “adversary,” is used here without the article. Elsewhere when it appears without the article, it refers to a person or national adversary in the human sphere or not in the human sphere in a Oppositional role, When referring elsewhere to the entity known in the book of Job and in the NT as Devil, or HASATAN the noun has the article and is used as a title, “THE Adversary” (see Job 1:6-9; 2:1-6- Zech 3:1-. In light of usage elsewhere the adversary in 1 Chr 21:1 is likely a human enemy, and NOT Yehovah angel as you conclude, it is more likely or probably a nearby nation or an UNNAMED PERSON who was adversarial against Israel pressuring David into numbering the people. So he could assess his military strength. I can’t see the logic why Yehovah would send an angel to go against His own directive about the Census as some kind of test, it sound irrational. So although in the Hebrew Bible it does not give us alot of detail of who this HA SATAN is ..but only hints, it is not until you get to the book of Job and parts of Zech and the NT is when more is given about this UNNAMED ENEMY of man and God. the Greek text calls him the Devil as you stated which is a title for slander which means oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person …which is what the HA SATAN did to job….challenging his loyalty to Yehovah. By saying that he only worshiped him or was loyal to him because of what God had giving him and only out of self interest. Well job proved that this HA SATAN was a lair…in which Yeshua called him in John 8:44 You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies. And the interesting part of that text is Yeshua connected him with the incident in Genesis, Giving us the Hint of who was the one making that serpent talk, calling him a murderer, because of bringing Death to mankind. by deceiving eve. That’s if you believe that the Genesis account is to be read in it’s Peshat form. and not in some allegorical form which some Jews think it is. So if I was you, I would not so easily discount the Idea That yes God does have an enemy that did rebelled against him. I assume his spirit creatures have free will not robots. And not just a servant of God.

    I also challenge your reading of Isaiah 45:7 some render it as forming light, and creating darkness; making peace, and creating evil. I, Yehovah, do all these things. The rendering of the last line makes no sense, Isaiah is contrasting words, like light and darkness so the next line should be is peace and calamity, and not making peace, and creating evil. For that would be Good and evil that’s a contrast. Peace and evil is not. The Hebrew word for evil which is Ra’ has many other meanings so context should guide or determine the meaning of the text. Even the Jps render’s it as I make weal and create woe. weal is well being in Old English.

    • Thank you Pedro, beautifully written!

    • -I also challenge your reading of Isaiah 45:7 some render it as forming light, and creating darkness; making peace, and creating evil. – …

      Totally agree!

    • Interesting take on Isa. 45:7, but I don’t necessarily see why “peace” and “evil” aren’t a good contrast. רַע “ra” has the most basic meaning of “bad” or “evil.” It can sometimes mean “harm” (Pro. 19:23), or “trouble” (Pro. 12:21). This word is elsewhere contrasted with “good” (Isa. 7:15,16) but it is also contrasted with “peace” as in this verse. However we also see this same contrast in Pro. 12:20 (“plotting bad” vs. “advising peace”). There is also a verse where “ra” is contrasted with both “good” and “peace” (Ps, 34:14).
      I would advise to consider the above verses in this discussion.
      Keep reading.

      • You state This word is elsewhere contrasted with “good” (Isa. 7:15,16) the writer is not contrasting in this text, but describing a choice that the child would choose…very different so in this context of course, it is appropriate to use the word evil or bad because it’s describing a choice the child would do. if you read the post I said that, what would determine the appropriate translation of the word in any passage is context. Ra’ has many shades of meaning not just evil. You see people who believe that God created evil will find themselves in a conundrum. because then you would have to ask yourself, if God created evil then how can he judge the world for it’s evil behavior or action? Since he is the one that created evil, That would mean that God would be held responsible for all the evil in the world that people decide to do. And then the question needs to be answered, would he have the right in punishing an action or an evil behavior if he is the one that created the ability to do evil.?

        • Pedro

          Spot on!
          A house divided cannot stand! Math.12:25

        • You make a very good point Pedro. The point of my comment was to establish the basic meaning of “ra.” ‘Ra” does have other meanings (as I pointed out) but those other meanings are all related to the basic meaning of “bad/evil.” You can’t have “trouble, ” “harm,” or “calamity” without there being “evil/bad” in the first place. I’m not saying “ra” doesn’t have any of those any meanings in the verse I mentioned in my previous post, it could or could not- I honestly don’t know for sure. In Isa. 7:14-15, it isn’t necessarily a contrast, but describes the two choices the child would have to make, and those two choices DO contrast with each other BUT it’s not the same type of context that is used in Isa. 45:7.
          As for your questions on God allegedly creating bad and all the theological difficulties regarding this interpretation, you still have the question of “What is the origin of evil/bad” if you reject the view of God creating evil/bad. You also now have the question of “If God didn’t create evil then who did? Is there another creator? Why didn’t God stop evil from being created? How can God then judge the world for its evil if he allowed the evil to be created, or was evil’s creation outside of his control?”
          I enjoy discussing this issue with you Pedro. Although I don’t necessarily agree with your views I enjoy talking about these issues.
          Keep reading.