Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
To the Think Deeper podcast presented by Focus Press. Joe Wilkie here joined as always by Jack Wilkie, but not Will Harab this time. We are, we are missing our, our other favorite co host as he is on vacation and much deserved. We hope he has a blast down there with his wife. And so, yeah, we're happy for him. But it's just me and Jack today. And so we were kicking around some ideas. We have a couple interviews upcoming. One of them wasn't able to meet just quite yet. And so we said, hey, what are we going to do? And we've been throwing around this concept for a little while. That is this idea of biblical conundrums. And Jack, you're the one that brought it to me, so get us into it as to maybe what got you thinking on this, on this path.
[00:00:51] Speaker B: Yeah, I don't remember what got me thinking on this path, but I thought it'd be fun to look at trivial Bible debates. And I say trivial, just things that don't have a whole lot of real world weight. You know, the classic example is does Adam have a belly button? We're not going to go into that one. But things like that where it's not going to really impact your day to day life. And I had a few, a couple of comments like, is there anything trivial in the Bible? Yeah, I mean, kind of.
You know, there are things where it is the, there's not an answer, it is speculation. And so we're also going to say that right up front, some of these are just speculation. And here's the other thing to make this more interesting for podcasting sake, I made the rule. We have to choose a side on every debate that we introduce.
[00:01:35] Speaker A: Tough.
[00:01:35] Speaker B: Because the easiest thing is like, well, there's a lot of information out there. I don't know, let's move on. Well, that's not fun, you know, and so.
[00:01:41] Speaker A: Right.
We're going to have to defend our takes.
[00:01:44] Speaker B: We're going to have to defend our takes. And but that's the cool thing about it is these things aren't that important.
And so if we're wrong about it, okay, you know, the, the Nephilim and who wrote Hebrews and things like that, that when we say trivial, we're not like downgrading the Bible. We're just downgrading the life and death stakes of an argument.
[00:02:05] Speaker A: The importance of some of these things. And okay, please, nobody, nobody come after us of why are we discussing these things? You know, aren't there more important things? We get that every single time like, this is for fun. It's our podcast. We're going to record it if we want to. We have a good time with this. There's a lot of other life and death situations record on. Go refer to the other 230 episodes we've recorded. This one's one for us that it's like, you know what?
We're gonna have a good time with it. If the speculation and all of those things aren't for you, then you can, you know, feel free to skip past this one. That's perfectly fine.
[00:02:35] Speaker B: I'm sure we'll be back with this though.
[00:02:37] Speaker A: A lot of people say, but I
[00:02:38] Speaker B: love these kind of discussions, so I'm not worried about it.
[00:02:40] Speaker A: There's enough here that I think, man, this just excites us. It's a good time. That's what we're hoping to have. Jack and I are kicking these things back and forth. We've studied a lot of these things for a long time. Some of this goes back to the Bear Valley days, which was eons ago for us as we've. I think my views have actually changed in that time on a few of these things for sure.
And so, yeah, we're planning to have a good time with it. We love your takes. Make sure to get your comments in. Let us know what you think on these biblical controversies. Quote, unquote, just some of these trivial things. And. And so, yeah, let's jump right in. What do we have is number one. Let me pull up.
[00:03:10] Speaker B: Let's do the Nephilim. Everyone loves the Nephilim.
And so that, of course, let's read the text in Genesis chapter six. The. This is one that has gained in popularity like crazy in recent years because of the podcastosphere. I think the orthodoxy thing, they like talking about this a lot, like the spiritual realm and demons and things like that. And this is something that people who aren't even all that religious have gotten their view of Nephilim and they kick that idea, that terminology out.
[00:03:43] Speaker A: Yeah, they wade into it.
[00:03:44] Speaker B: Yeah. So Genesis 6, verse 1. Now, it came about when men began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them. That the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, my spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh.
Nevertheless, his day shall be 120 years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. And then of course, right after that, it's about how wicked the world is and God selecting Noah as last man standing and talking about the flood. So go over the different views of who the Nephilim are of what's going on here. Sons of God, daughters of men.
[00:04:29] Speaker A: A lot of people say sons of God is just the sons of Seth, that they were the ones that were after God. Obviously you have Cain and Abel and Seth and Abel being dead. Cain clearly is not having the kids that we would assume are after God, so to speak. And so a lot of people make that case. It's just the Christians, quote unquote of the day, the God followers. There are others that believe that, which I think I'm more in line with that these are angelic beings that would come down. You know, the sons of God are referring to angels coming down.
And there's a little bit of a difference, the nuance there. There's a third one which is basically, it's not just angels. It is, I guess we get into the divine council, which is this idea that there are little G gods underneath Yahweh as the big God, Big G God, he is the master, ruler of the universe, the creator of all, but that he has these gods, again, little G that are kind of part of this divine council. Michael Heiser gets into a lot of this stuff. There's a lot of people that do, but he's kind of the well known one and that those are kind of the sons of God. And this connects to Psalm 82 and this idea that he's sitting around with his counsel. And those are the guys that leave their proper domain in heaven. They rebel against God, they come down, they mate with women. There's a lot of background in the Book of Enoch about this. No, that is not scripture. That's not canon. It is extra biblical. It is quoted in Jude. I think there's another quotation somewhere. Maybe there's debate on whether that's if it's quoting Enoch or not. But either way, that's kind of the concept is you have this extra biblical book, so to speak, that a lot of people will run to and say that's detailing exactly what this is. There's a lot of people though that take it to be hooey, pretty false. So those are the main. Did I do good on the viewpoints? Any others you'd add?
[00:06:20] Speaker B: Yeah, so the Nephilim itself means the fallen.
However, in older translations it Will say the giants. And this is a term that also comes up in the Book of Numbers when they are given their report of the land.
The Nephilim, the sons of Anak are there. And so that, that shows up again later, which also throws a wrench in things. If this was something that the flood was intended to address and wipe these beings out, why are they there after the flood is one of the questions that comes up. And so the, the one view is that it was angels leaving their proper abode, you know, heavenly beings leaving their proper abode and coming and breeding with mankind. Whether that was taking, you know, in a physical sense or whether they possessed humans and they. There, there lots of different ideas on the mechanics. We're not going to get into that here.
But from that it created these spiritual beings that were, as he goes on to say, the mighty men, men of renown, essentially great giants, things like that. And so I don't know, there's the angel demon side and there is the. These are men again, Seth's line intermarrying with Cain's line. And there were great rulers of the world in that day is what's being talked about.
I think. I know, I think you already tipped your hand a little bit which side you're going to take. So just for devil's advocate, because I'm not strong on either side of this, I'll take the other side. But you go ahead and give the pro case.
[00:07:49] Speaker A: So here's what I. Here's my pro case.
We do know Enoch is a book of antiquity. It does go back a ways. I'm not saying that it's biblical. I think it tells an interesting story that seems to corroborate a lot of, I would say, modern history.
I think when you look at Greek history, Roman history and so many of those, all the way back to the Babylonians, the Sumerians, you know, with the Epic of Gilgamesh and such. I think those, the Sumerians, that they all have this concept of the half God, half man God came down, made it, you know, Zeus and.
Or I guess it's crud, which is it in, you know, all of these different gods, Achilles and. Yeah, Hercules and all of those. So some of those are gods, some of those are half gods.
Some of those are the offspring of gods that could do amazing things which were men of renown. I don't think that came from nothing. I don't think those were just made up fairy tales. I think all fairy tales are actually based somewhat in reality.
That makes sense to me. That it would be these, I think the proper abode of angels being left, the rebellion taking place, them coming down, mating with the daughters of men. I don't take this to be Seth. I think why would Nephilim especially go into numbers? Is it number 13? I want to say I had that pulled up.
Numbers 1333, it mentions that there were also. We saw Nephilim sons of Anak as part of the Nephilim. We became like grasshoppers in our own site. So we were in their site. You don't get the sense in Sihon and Og you have as giants, you don't get the sense that that's a positive thing. And so to use that as those were the offspring of Seth as the sons of God, that they had giants, that doesn't seem to be a positive thing. And these are the people being wiped out in the flood.
What I would take to be the case. And then I'll wrap up. And I'm curious your thoughts on the devil's advocate side. I do think that there is a divine council. I think that God is not alone up there. I think he is the God of the universe and there is only one God but Him. But when we talk about these very powerful spiritual beings, baal, Asherah, you know, we see these throughout. They did have power in the old days. They did have power. Otherwise people wouldn't be cutting themselves, they wouldn't be sacrificing their kids. They wouldn't be doing those things if it never worked. It did work because they had power locally, but God had all power. So when it's talking about the principalities and forces of darkness and things like that in Ephesians, I think it's referring to this, that God, through Christ, shut them up. That Christ, when he overcame sin and death, took away their two stings. You know, as it talks about, I think it's First Corinthians 15 of taking away the sting. Right.
That is something they could use to control the masses is a mass death and this, you know, sinful nature. Christ overcame both and he shut their mouths and they do not have power the way they once did. But do I think there were local gods? Yeah, I do. Do I think that they were rebelling that God had beings that were intended to help him spread his name to the nations and they were to turn back and give him glory? I do. And I think that that's the rebellion. Now, again, this is all speculation, but it makes sense to me that it would result in these half gods, half men, that all of These stories would then come from that, you see throughout modern history that they end up worshiping those gods. We worship the true God. We worship Yahweh. They did not. They would worship the Zeuses and the Hercules and the things like that that were these false gods. The other thing. And then I'll shut up. Sorry, I'll let you go. The other thing is, when you look at baal, you look at Zeus, you look at Thor, they're all the same God.
They're all the same, you know, the God of weather, the God that can bring hail, things like that. They're all the same God. Egypt had their own version. They just called him by a different name. So I think it's. It is a local God that had power in those moments. But God, when he wanted to shut them up, like Elijah on Mount Carmel, could do it, and he'd go, nope, you have no power. And he brings down the fire. So I think it's all connected. And I think the Nephilim kind of open up to a broader narrative of spiritual forces.
This divine council, who left their proper abode, who did not. Enoch gets into this some. Whether you take that legitimate or not, I don't know. But that's. My theory is I'll lay it out there. What are your thoughts?
[00:11:57] Speaker B: So just to clarify, you don't believe it was angels leaving their proper abode, but it was divine council members or that.
[00:12:03] Speaker A: I think angels became demons. You know, that they were. God didn't create demons. He created the angels that fell. And I think they went along with Satan, who I think was either an archangel or one of these, you know, top beings. So you could call them archangels, you could call them whatever you want to say, but like the beings that are below God, but they're not the standard angel, in my opinion.
[00:12:26] Speaker B: All right.
[00:12:27] Speaker A: To help him rule the nations, which would go off of the other.
[00:12:30] Speaker B: That was where the angels. Angels left their proper abode. And that's. You end up with these creatures. So I think. I feel like you're kind of blending a couple of the views there. But that's okay. You're allowed to do that. And I get that.
[00:12:42] Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, they're close.
Close in.
[00:12:45] Speaker B: So on the other side, things that I found was, yes, Job says the sons of God, and that seems to heavily imply angels. He uses that term right at the start of the book when they came to present themselves before God. And then later in the book about the sons of God who shouted for joy, creation.
On the other hand, Moses never uses that Moses speaks of angels quite a bit, but not of sons of God as angels. And so I think that it's itself interesting.
Enoch is very dubious. The idea that Jude quoted it, Jude might have quoted it. It might have been that they both were referencing a similar known thing at the time. But one of the things that I came across in this that I thought was interesting is that the literal translation of verse four is that these fallen beings, the Nephilim, the fallen ones, were already there before the interbreeding, when you get the translation correctly. And so I pulled it up in Young's Literal says the fallen ones were in the earth in those days and even afterwards, when sons of God come, come into. Come in unto daughters of men, and they are born to them. They are the heroes who are from old are the men of name, men of. We call it men of renown. So it's saying that these beings were already around before the sons of God, daughters of men interbreeding. And so you've got two separate issues there. Then is the sons of God, daughters of men thing still angels leaving their proper abode? And the guy that I was listening make this argument agreed that that still happened and that's still what was being referred to, but that it didn't produce these spectacular characters. It was just that the world had very powerful men who had risen up and were very wicked men that God had to wipe out in the flood. And so the timing on that, I think, is very interesting. The other thing about it is it just veers so sharply from the text where you've got two lines and one good line, one bad line. But then it comes to the point right after that where everybody's been corrupted except one guy, that there is no good line anymore. There's one good guy. That's it. And so to throw something in there and be like, oh, yeah, and by the way, demons are being created at this point in time. And then back to the story of, you know, Cain's line falling apart and leaving only Noah. And so, as I said, I don't have a firm take on this, but because the rules of this podcast say I have to choose one or the other gonna go the other direction. I've in my. My scriptural focus on the FocusPress YouTube channel, I went the other way. This one, I'm gonna say I've changed my mind, at least enough to make the argument this time. So that's where I stand on this one.
[00:15:17] Speaker A: That's interesting.
[00:15:18] Speaker B: That is the extreme minority view these days, because, man, nephilim stuff has run amok because it's fun speculation. And the other thing that was interesting in the case that I was watching, the guy made the point.
He believes that this. When Paul tells Timothy, don't get caught up in foolish genealogies, that it is about those kinds of things, because the Book of Enoch has angelic genealogies. Right. And people really do get caught up in these things. And I feel like, especially the Heizer, as you mentioned, like that that's a rabbit hole. That's not all that profitable. But people really get sucked into. And I could see the case for that being something even in Paul's day.
[00:15:56] Speaker A: It's. It's fascinating to think about because it taps into a world that we don't understand.
We know that the world was incredibly spiritual. Way more spiritual. Like the idea of an atheist just didn't exist back then because of these things, you know, like these types of discussions and such, that angels are walking among men. We got another question coming up here in a bit about, you know, about that.
So I could see your point. I think where I would say it doesn't.
Talking about veering, you have the sons of God mating with the daughters of men. Let's say that Seth with Cain's daughters. And in the very next verse, verse five, then the Lord saw that the weakness of man was great on the earth and that every intent of the thoughts of the heart was evil. That's a huge jump. It makes to me more sense that there was corruption taking place in a way that wasn't supposed to. Here's another thing that I saw that I thought was really interesting.
Throwing it out here again. We're just speculating here. I read an article where the guy made the case that Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about homosexuality. It was about strange flesh. And the strange flesh was them going after angels. And when the angels came in, they wanted to mate with angels.
And that. That was a. You know, they were the problem that runs. And he tried to explain the men with men thing. I didn't fully get it. I thought it was an interesting point of, like, the precedent had been set to mate with angels by the time that Sodom and Gomorrah came around. Don't know where I stand on that. Not fully convinced. He made some interesting cases on why it would say strange flesh. You know, what. What that's referring to. And then you see that in Jude.
So I don't know. That's what you will.
[00:17:24] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah.
[00:17:25] Speaker A: I was gonna say do it what you will. Just Throwing it out there. But yeah, I mean, I'm not convinced of your side. I don't think you're convinced. My side, that's fine.
Mine's a little hokey. It's a little out there, but it is like you said, it's interesting to think about. We just got to be really careful with it because that's about where it stops for me. Cool. It's interesting.
[00:17:42] Speaker B: Right.
[00:17:42] Speaker A: And then we move on because it's really dangerous, I think, to just go headfirst into these things.
[00:17:47] Speaker B: Yeah. A lot of people fixate on it.
All right, I'm going to jump one down the list or one or two to the author of Hebrews. I think that is one that as I brought up as an example in the start, you're never going to get a complete answer on this maybe until heaven. And I don't know if we're going to care to ask about it then anyway.
But that's what makes this fun. So who wrote.
[00:18:10] Speaker A: He gave my answer. I gave my answer first. You get to give it this time.
[00:18:13] Speaker B: I. Okay, so let's go over the. The arguments. One I'm going to dismiss offhand. Priscilla wrote Hebrews. No, people are just trying to get a woman author in the New Testament. That's.
Come on. So Apollos is one that is mentioned because he was mighty in the scriptures.
[00:18:30] Speaker A: Scriptures.
[00:18:33] Speaker B: So I'm going to get to the cons of some of these here in a bit. Paul is historically.
Was held that way for a long time. It has a lot of his style of argumentation, of course, his Old Testament quotation and just building a case kind of sequentially. Even I think it's a little different than. Or it's notably different in some ways to like a. Romans or whatever. But you know, there's.
You can see it was from a very intellectual, very scholarly person like Paul was. Yeah, let's see there. Others say Barnabas. I don't really know the reason for that. Others, somebody says John, there's just no way. But I came across that one and then Timothy. And that's where I'm going to make the case.
I like the case for Timothy because I don't believe it can be Paul because of what he says that. He says that we received our gospel through. Through the apostles. Well, he has said previously that didn't happen for him. Right. That he was somebody who got it directly from Christ. He says specifically, I didn't get that from somebody else. And so that sure makes it seem like it's not Paul. And yet it Sounds a lot like Paul. The argumentation follows Paul's style. It's somebody who knows the Old Testament very well.
And so you could see why maybe Paul's protege would be the guy. Also. He is the only person mentioned in the book by name.
And it's right there at the very end, three verses before the end of the book. Take notice that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he comes soon, I will see you now. Some people take that as evidence that it couldn't be Timothy because he's mentioned if this was a scribe. Because the other thing that's pretty well agreed on is that it's a sermon. And so that is kind of the case here is that Timothy preached it, somebody wrote it down, said, as you can see, Timothy's out of jail now. And he says, hey too. And then. And so that is my case for Timothy.
[00:20:32] Speaker A: We're not going to disagree on this one. That actually is my take is that it's a sermon and that it is Timothy. It has the argumentation, as you said, of Paul, that is somebody who's been trained by Paul, in my opinion. It makes sense to me that you would have a guy that is.
That is again, having the same argumentation. But there are those key differences. There are some things that I don't think lend super well to Pauline argumentation at times in the book. So it seems like it'd be somebody different. I waffle between Apollos and Timothy. I think for your point at the end of the book, that makes sense. I think this being a sermon that's given and this being ascribed, that to me makes the most sense.
Apollos is kind of an obscure like, okay, you see him in Acts 18. I think you see him Acts 18. We're not really seeing Apollos pop up multiple times to have the entire book of the Bible. I'm not saying it can't be done. No doubt Jude is one like, you know, James, but I don't know. That is a bit of a stretch. I feel like Timothy fits more of the sounding like Paul, but it's not Paul, but it's done in a sermon form. So I would agree with you.
[00:21:36] Speaker B: So the Apollos thing is a. That he is, you know, eloquent and he's mighty in the Scriptures. Acts 18 says, but also that he's Alexandrian and people who know Greek. I don't know this well, but I've seen this of. One of the arguments against it being Paul is that it's not really his style. And it is more the Alexandrian style, it seems that it comes from that school of thought, that stylistic approach.
And so if you're going to have somebody who really knows the Old Testament scriptures and has an Alexandrian approach, well, that's the only guy in the Bible who checks both of those boxes. And so, you know, it makes for an interesting case. But yeah, that's interesting. As you say, there's very little there to go off of. So.
But the other thing, it's. It's very hard to defer, to not defer to history, where it was just assigned to Paul for forever and ever and ever and ever. And then it started being questioned.
[00:22:28] Speaker A: And so the Timothy thing could lend toward Paul, it being a sermon of Paul, to your point, that one phrase seems to make it a little bit less the one thing. I'll say the other. The other thing that kind of causes me to think, you know, when I was thinking Apollos, the basis of how he uses the Old Testament and builds his case is reminiscent of a guy such as Apollos who's very strong in the Old Testament scriptures. Timothy's coming in as a Greek now. He's, you know, with the youth and such. But there's a level of how well is. How well versed is he in. In this, I'm assuming pretty well. Being with Paul, that's not a real strong argument. But we also know Apollos absolutely was mighty in the scriptures. And there's so much usage in Hebrews of Old Testament passages in a really, really cool way that whoever is preaching this is very well versed in the Old Testament. So that leans a little toward Apollos.
I don't think enough is going to skew for me. But yeah, that's. It's an interesting debate. I think it falls between those two. But you're right, historically, this is actually what class was on tonight. Brother Doug was teaching on Hebrews went into this, and he believed it was Paul just because, again, historically speaking, the early church was like, oh, it's Paul, it's Paul.
Nobody ever questioned it, which is like, most of the time we don't. We wouldn't buck that trend. We would go, well, they were right there. They probably know. It just doesn't necessarily really seem to lend toward Paul.
[00:23:45] Speaker B: Yeah, well, and then two, verse three, I kind of skimmed over it in my overview there. But where it says after it was the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard God, also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and various miracles of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will. As I said in Galatians and elsewhere, he makes it very clear in Corinthians when he defends his apostleship. Like, hey, I'm not. I didn't get this handed to me from Peter. Like I got this straight from the Source. And he's somebody who had the gifts and the signs and things like that. And so that is a very hard verse to square with the Paul view. But I love to hear in the comments which view you take, but especially I want to hear if somebody has one we didn't hit.
There's those are the main ones that usually come up. There might be one that we just totally missed, but I would love to see it. Alright, I kind of jumped the list. So you pick which one you want to go over next.
In just three verses. 2 Peter 1, 5:7 the apostle Peter lays out a divine blueprint for spiritual growth. Yet these Christian graces are often quoted far more than they are understood. The Christian Graces, God's Blueprint for the Development of Complete Christians by Adam Kozhort, takes you step by step through this powerful passage, showing how diligence, faith, virtue, knowledge, self control, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and love are not isolated traits, but a deliberate progression designed by God. This is not shallow inspiration. It is careful Bible study. It is practical application. It is a call to maturity. Each chapter digs into the meaning of the text, explores its scriptural foundation, and challenges you to apply it in daily life. You will see how every grace builds upon the last and why none can be skipped without weakening your walk with God.
If you desire more than surface level Christianity, if you want stability, depth and fruitfulness, if you are ready to grow, this blueprint is for you the Christian God's Blueprint for the Development of Complete Christians by Adam Kozord is available now on Amazon.com and paperback, Kindle and audiobook.
[00:25:49] Speaker A: Let's do man of Lawlessness who is the man of lawlessness? 2nd Thessalonians 2 I was studying this one, so this is one that for sure has changed since Bear Valley days. Because I wrote this paper in Bear Valley many moons ago about who this would be referring to. And I said that this was referring to the Catholic Church. Well, Rome that kind of transitioned into the Church. You cheated and took both. Yeah, I cheated and took both, which a lot of people did that it is more representative of those of kind of both and the end. And you know, there's a lot of Roman emperors that might be able to fit and the Pope kind of seems to fit some of these things and then you take it over with the, you know, the Antichrist as John talks about. And who's this talk? I now think that those are separate the Antichrist and man of lawlessness.
And yeah. Do you want me to any, any thoughts, introductory thoughts before I give my take?
I'm really curious your take on this. Okay.
So as you're reading through, it's a really strange passage. Really, really kind of odd because he's going into right before in chapter one, about dealing retribution to those who don't know God. In verse 8, to those who do not obey the gospel, Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction. He's going all this eternal stuff to this end also. We pray for you always. Verse 11.
So the name of our Lord, verse 12 will be glorified. And then in verse 2, chapter 2, verse 1. And I request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. How do we know when the day of the Lord has come? This is the real kicker is if you take it just face value, we're still waiting on the day of the Lord. This is seemingly talking about eternal destruction, the end, the judgment in chapter one.
And yet when he says, let no one in any way deceive you, for we're not coming, lest the apostasy comes first, he's giving them a little marker of you'll know when it's going to come. Well, 2,000 years later, if I'm reading this correctly, it has not come. On the other hand, that does not mean that the apostasy has not come, that this is some future figure that is yet to be here. I don't think you'd write it to them if it had no bearing on them. I'm going to take this in the vein of Matthew 24, which is the destruction of Jerusalem. I think that this apostasy that he's speaking of is specifically the destruction of the high priesthood or the priesthood there in and of Jerusalem in AD 70. And I think the man of lawlessness is the high priest. Now, I was doing some research on this and I found this fascinating.
So they have let me pull this up really fast. I meant to have this ahead of time. There was a man named Mattathias. I'm probably butchering that. Ben Theophilus, who was the Jewish high priest at the start of the Jewish revolution, he was thrown over by revolutionary forces.
Before him though was a man, or rather after him was a man who was basically Phinehas B. Samuel. Samuel, I'm assuming he was the last high priest when this all took place. According to the reckoning of Josephus, the 83rd since Aaron. He was a wholly unworthy person who was not of high priestly lineage, who did not even know what the high priest's office was, but was chosen by lot and in 67, 68 was dragged by the revolutionary party against his will from his village Athea, where he was a farmer, to Jerusalem to take the place of the deposed Mattathias Ben Theophilus.
He was clothed in the high priestly garments and instructed as to what he had had to do. On every occasion he was an object of ridicule for the evil minded. But this godlessness drew tears from the eyes of the worthy priests. He met his death probably in the general catastrophe. This Jewish encyclopedia that was going in into this. So this Phanius, Phanius, however, Ben Samuel was the last Jewish high priest. And basically the guy was a fraud. Guy had nothing to do with it. The high priesthood had fallen into, especially after Ananias and Caiaphas, or Annas rather, in Caiaphas that had become a scourge on the church, had become a terrible, you know, a terrible position. So I take this to be the high priest. And I think when you look at this, when you're talking about the like all of these things not happening, the coming of our Lord, it's tough to square this as I'm looking at it, with anything other than the end times. But how will you know? Let no one deceive you. It will not come out until the apostasy comes first. The man of lawlessness is revealed, the Son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so called God or object of worship. To me I think it's a stretch. But on the other hand, the most plausible to marry this with my reading of Revelation as a partial preterist, with my reading of Matthew 24 and to say that this is referring to the priesthood, more specifically the high priest as it's attempting to take down the Church and as it leads toward this man being the last who is exalted. And he has no, he's. He's just basically, you know, has nothing to do with the priesthood and they made a mockery of it. But leading up to that point and then up to the destruction of Jerusalem, I'm going to Say that this is the high priest. One of the high priests may be the second to last or the last high priest.
That is my theory as of now.
What are your thoughts?
[00:31:04] Speaker B: I think it's a solid one.
So you brought up Matthew 24 very interestingly.
It says in verse 10, Then many will be offended and will betray one another and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. And so you've got, in 2 Thessalonians 2, the man of lawlessness. You've got the apostasy. You've got false prophet deceiving people.
You've got all of those things going on.
And he says right after that, therefore, when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
All of those things are very parallel to what's going on there. In Second Thessalonians, Paul draws on very similar language. And so to tip my hand, I'm gonna go with what you said and say I agree.
On the other hand, I'll make the case for Rome.
One of those things. When I wrote my research paper, I went with the. The Roman emperors particular, perhaps Nero, that his persecution was coming.
I think it was in 41 A.D. caligula had, basically. I don't know if he had gone.
I don't think he showed up at the temple in Jerusalem, but, like, set up an idol in the temple in Jerusalem or whatever, like, for worship and demanded worship.
And so there was this. This history of Rome doing that. And so maybe that would be what they looked to and thought that that was what was going on.
Something very interesting about this one is there's a few questions. The restrainer, you mentioned the apostasy happening. That's one of the questions. The one who restrains, who's doing the restraining now? Is it Jesus? Is it, you know, the Holy Spirit? Is it Whatever he's gonna do? So until he's taken out of the way, then the lawless one will be revealed.
But this is a translation difference as well. So I think you read the NASB where it says in verse 8 of 2nd Thessalonians 2, then that lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will slay with the breath of his mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of his coming.
That is, the one who's coming is in accord with the activity of Satan with all power and signs. And false wonders.
New King James and some of the others split that a little bit harder. They say then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan with all power signs and lying wonders. So New American Standard takes that as one coming and all of this happening at the same time.
This one is when Jesus comes, he's going to destroy this guy. When the lawless one comes, it's going to have power signs, lying wonders, things like that. And so again, I'm kind of making your case again.
You could go with the. The Roman emperors. You could go with the very popular view that was popularized, of course, during the Reformation, that it was the Pope, because Luther and all those guys really wanted it to be the Pope. I think Luther was one of the ones that first championed this view that it was the Pope and his deception and setting himself up in the temple of God and speaking for God and things like that.
But I think that one is the biggest stretch of all. So.
Yeah, just a few points to note there.
[00:34:18] Speaker A: Well, the difficulty is, you know, with Rome, it's the same as revelation. It just becomes kind of like, it makes the most sense in some of these things.
Kind of it makes the most sense because you could point to about six different emperors that are like, that's the guy, that's the guy, that's the guy. And so it's like, well, one of them's got to be the guy, because it's just so down the line. I mean, this is something that they would do. It looks like them.
It doesn't seem to fit quite as neatly with the high priest because we're not as versed in that history as we are in Roman history with some of these things. I think some of it's drawing on what we might call biblical language rather than very hyper, like, this is it, you know, type of thing of like, well, what, what Matthew 24 does. It uses a lot of terminology that you go, oh, that's the end times. That, that's like, hasn't happened yet. But I think it's actually speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem.
So Rome is the easy stand in for revelation. It's the easy stand in for Amanda, lawlessness. Because it could be at any points in time, for 200, 300 years of Roman history, you could look at and go, that's what that is talking about.
This is much more dialed into.
There's really about one point in time about AD 70 and what's coming here. And so if you're off, you're really off with Rome. There's a lot more wiggle room, if that makes sense. Well, it's Rome. Okay, well, is it Rome in AD 60? Is it Rome in, you know, 120 or in 325 with Constantine or. You know what I mean? Like, there's just more wiggle room when you say Rome.
[00:35:40] Speaker B: It's also very hard when you start taking a partial preterist view and looking to revelation in Matthew 24 as being about AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.
You really see it everywhere in the New Testament. I mean, it's very. You see it in Romans, you see it in Galatians, you see it in Hebrews a little bit. You see it in just so much pointing to and the Jew, gentile difficulties in the New Testament and things like that, and the apostasy and the fullness of the Jews and the 144,000 things like that. All you can draw a line through this text and those when you're not having to interpret them separately, but they mesh together. And so, as you can tell, we're both fans of that view. I tried to give a different take and I didn't do very well. So showed our hand a bit there.
Hey, guys, Jack Wilke here. If you enjoy our work with podcasts like Think Deeper and Godly Young Men and our books, articles, seminars, and want to support the work that we do, the best way to do so is to go to focuspress.org donate that's focuspress.org thanks again for listening.
All right, this one we might disagree on. What was Paul's thorn in the flesh?
[00:36:56] Speaker A: I was researching this ahead of time because the usual standard pat answer is obviously his eyesight. There's a few different things that people might think eyesight, some health struggle, some temptation, some person that was following Paul, just tormenting him, kind of that woman that he tells to shut up. You know, like, Historically in my life, if I can use that word, I have always said eyesight because I think it's the easy answer. When I went back and read it, though. So 2nd Corinthians 12 for those anybody following along. 2nd Corinthians 12 obviously is where he's talking about his thorn of the flesh. Very weird passage where I don't know where I've fallen, if he's speaking. I've always thought that he's speaking of himself in that context, but I'm not entirely convinced. I mean, I Think there's reasons why. Yeah, I know a man In Christ who, 14 years ago, I think that is speaking of him. But on the other hand, man, there's some things that maybe not. Either way, Verse seven is kind of where that kicks off. And when he talks about a messenger of Satan to torment me like this. This was a.
There's given a thorn in the flesh messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from exalting myself.
I have a tough time feeling that that is eyesight, that if Paul had greater eyesight, he could exalt himself. Now, if you're having to be led around, if you're having to have people write this in his own, you know, as he talks about. I think it's the end of Galatians, one of those books where he's like, I wrote this in my own hand. You could tell he's got some struggles with his eyes. He's having to use a scribe. That might be a humbling experience.
Being led around or having to, you know, rely on others. That could be the humbling experience he's talking about. So I could see the eyesight. I know there's reasons. There's other reasons. I'm not bringing up as to why people say the eyesight.
Then my mind goes to Romans 7.
Is it possible that he's got something that he's struggling with? Whether this be a.
I don't know. I think if it was. Was a sin, a continual, ongoing sin, an addiction of sorts, or whatever it may be. I know that humbles people really fast. That can feel like a thorn in the flesh. I don't think he'd speak of it in this way. If it was a.
You know, if it was an addiction or a spiritual struggle. I don't think you look at it as such, but I know that there's a level of Christ's powers perfected in weakness. You have to continually come back for grace and continually put your faith in God on that. And if you read Romans 7's kind of squint to the side and look in the right light, you can make the case that there is a.
He's got some sin he's struggling with. That is the thorn of the flesh that God. He keeps asking God to remove. I've lived that life as the addict of asking God to remove something that he doesn't.
I don't think it fits the context. Personally, I think that's a really tough one to make. But I think. I suppose you could kind of make the case.
I'm not really Taking a.
If it's something else, some other malady, some other thing, we don't really have any indication of it. That's why it's the safest bet, is to come back to the eyesight.
Just because a lot of people kind of believe that and there's reasons why that seems to make sense. I don't know. I researched this, I was looking at different things, you know, from what I believe in the past. Kind of challenging some of that. I don't know that I have a great answer. I'm going to continue with eyesight, but I'm very easily swayed if you have a different take, I'll say that.
[00:40:08] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean it's, it's little breadcrumbs in there that make it so hard.
So as you say, a messenger of Satan to torment. And while that eyesight doesn't seem like a messenger of Satan, it's going to keep him from exalting himself.
Okay, what. What would keep him from it? Because any answer that you. Let's say you go with eyesight. Was eyesight a messenger of Satan? And I doesn't that seems like a strange way to put that? Is it an opponent? Well, how does that keep him from exalting himself?
Right, right. Then he's told, my grace is sufficient for you for powers perfected in weakness. Well, okay, so that one lends more toward the, the sin, but like a messenger of Satan to torment him. I, I don't know. But you boasting about his weaknesses, that's not. You don't boast about a sin problem.
[00:40:55] Speaker A: Right.
[00:40:55] Speaker B: And so whichever one you go with. So I, I like the idea of a persecutor, somebody causing him trouble. Alexander the Coppersmith, he mentions twice by name in first Timothy he calls it says Hymenaeus and Alexander. And at the end of second Timothy 4, verse 14, he says, Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. The Lord will repay him according to his deeds. This was somebody who was introduced in Acts 19:33 as he was on their side.
And now it's somebody who's doing Paul much harm.
Paul had to hand him over to Satan. This is clearly somebody that gave him some trouble.
And so a messenger from Satan who's tormenting him.
But it doesn't fit the. That it's keeping him humble. And so unless it's a guy that's just.
[00:41:42] Speaker A: It might leave me.
[00:41:43] Speaker B: Right. That it? Yeah. So it's an id. And so like, I don't know, there's not a clear one. So. Yeah. You mentioned sins of the past vision. Some people believe he had, like, weakness in his legs, things like that. I mean, it's. And again, anybody who's coming down on us, like, who's looking at this going, how they could they believe that? Anybody's guess is as good as anybody else's.
So tell us, tell us what you think. If you've got the answer for it, we'd love to hear it. But there's another angle that I think is interesting on this one. Unless you had any other theories to throw into that.
[00:42:16] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, it's just in context of him defending himself. You go back to chapter 11, you know, of him having to boast. There's this boast and weakness. He keeps going back and forth on that in the book. And, you know, specifically at this part in chapter 11 of him having to boast, kind of. But it's pointing to the weakness here about, hey, if anybody thinks he's a Hebrew, so am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I the servants of Christ? I speak as if insane. I am. So he's having to defend his apostleship. And I wonder if that's where the humility comes in, is there is. You know, and this is what lends maybe toward a person, in my mind, that it is a little tough to get around, but a person of somebody who is attacking him, attacking his character, attacking his apostleship over and over, that he continues to have to defend. He's already doing it for. With the Corinthians.
I think in that context it could make sense that there's a tormentor and the messenger of Satan does lend more toward a somebody rather than a something.
But again, the. It would leave me. Maybe it's, you know, I don't know how to get around it. But it does seem to be interesting in that context of the boasting and weakness, consistently that he pulls this out, that it's like it makes sense from the tormenting standpoint that there would be somebody challenging him over and over and over, and he keeps having to defend himself. And. And there's a humbling element to Maybe he's got something on Paul, you know, in terms of bringing up his past, bringing up him being a murderer or whatever.
[00:43:35] Speaker B: Satan the accuser. Yeah, exactly.
[00:43:38] Speaker A: So I don't know. That would just be the only other take. But what do you. What are your thoughts? What's the. What's the other one you had?
[00:43:43] Speaker B: Do you think Satan still does this? That he's still allowed to do this, that and not That I or anybody I know has the clout of Paul, that Satan would be trying that hard to bring us down.
You know, I don't. The whole. The Devil made me do it. I don't think he needs to bother with most of us. You know, that's where, you know, lesser delegation might be focused on us, you know, screwtape style or whatever. I don't know. But then again, it doesn't have to be directly from Satan to be a messenger of Satan or whatever.
But the trials that we have, things like that, is it possible that that's something that can still happen? And whether, again, it's a physical malady, a physical trial, a difficult person, things like that,
[00:44:30] Speaker A: I struggle with this one. You know, we see him sift Peter like wheat. We see this happen.
I don't think he has the ability to accuse the Christians the way that he did, obviously. So one part of Satan's power, one part of Satan's work, what we see him do, I think with job of approaching God and what we see him do in Zechariah 3 of accusing Joshua, there's that accusation. I don't think he can stand in front of God and accuse people anymore.
Okay, well, can he be on earth, as you said, screwtape letters wise, kind of enticing, kind of working in people?
I'm gonna say yes, but I'm hesitant.
I have this debate a lot, and this is me thinking out loud. This can sound really dumb.
As a therapist, I look at a lot of people's sins and yes, it is a sin. I'm not debating whether these things are sins, but I look at where it comes from. And so often it's like, well, yeah, you know, your dad beat you as a kid and now you end up getting, you know, you have serious anger problems and screaming everybody. Well, I probably could have told you that. Where does Satan enter in? Well, we say, well, okay, so Satan was entered into his dad to have him beat him so that all these. Okay, well, his dad was beaten by his dad and he just took it out. You know what I mean? Like, it just goes up the generations of. I can tell you why people sin for the most part, why they do what they do. And very rarely is it like I was so overcome with something that was so clearly Satan.
So, you know what I mean?
[00:45:51] Speaker B: Whereas back still have. You're seeing more control and.
[00:45:54] Speaker A: Yeah, right. You're seeing people completely taken over. Legion and guys like that. I know that's demon possession, but you're seeing people completely taken over in A way that we don't. I don't think we see these days now, there are always those stories floating around. I don't know what to make of those of, you know, legitimate demon possession and things like that. I'm highly, highly skeptical.
[00:46:13] Speaker B: Yeah, I don't make much of that. And really, I don't think it has to be demon possession. But you think about, like, Nehemiah Sanballat and Tobiah, guys that are like, hey, we got to put a stop to this. Let's lie about him, let's intimidate him, let's do all this stuff. They don't have to be possessed by Satan to be doing his work or, you know, to be even saved by him, even if they don't realize they were, you know, that he can. You and him being the father of lies, I mean, the people who lie and put a stop to good works, I mean, you just see this.
When good works start happening, bad things, like, bad people start swarming around them and things like that. And I don't think anybody got a whisper in their ear from Satan. Like, I go shut him down so much as that's how he operates, is he can get, you know, he.
You know, he's trying to manipulate things in that way.
[00:46:59] Speaker A: I also don't think you have the Epstein's, you know, of the world and people like that, the Diddy's of the world, P. Diddy, you know, those things that get uncovered. Satan's working.
[00:47:08] Speaker B: Very dark now.
[00:47:10] Speaker A: Very, very dark. Satan's working. Satan is abortion, things like that, the LGBTQ movement, the rise of that movement. How he's working, I'm not fully sure, but do I think he's working? I don't see how we could look at all of the evils of the world and think that he's not still powerful now. I think it may be done through more subtle means. The other difficulty is we know he's roaming the earth, you know, seeking someone to devour. We see him roaming in job. He is not omnish or he's not omnipresent. He's not everywhere at once. I think that's what lends toward the demons. How much are they able to affect things, you know, cause things to go poor south?
I don't know how much power they have, but I do believe that they are working in certain things. But I also know that if you choose something away from God, you're much more likely to degrade whatever that is. And the next choices, so on and so forth, get worse and worse. And Worse. And so sin enters that way. And at what, what point can we say Satan was there? You know, was Satan causing. It's like, well, a person just made a really bad choice that lend toward another one and another one and another one down the line that leads to the Epstein's of the world. So.
[00:48:10] Speaker B: Right.
I don't know, I don't think we could say as confidently as Paul did, oh man, I'm being tormented by a messenger of Satan. But you could say, boy, this sure seems like the kind of thing he'd like to do, you know, and so just being aware of that and when you get that discouragement, man, you've got that feeling just dragging you down, realizing, hey, maybe, maybe this isn't original to me. Like maybe there are things being put in my way, you know, to try and bring me down and realize that can happen.
[00:48:38] Speaker A: And there's spiritual forces as well. Spiritual. You know, the spiritual warfare there has
[00:48:42] Speaker B: been all the way back side. Yeah. They're not, they're still trying to do stuff even if they are bound or however you take it.
[00:48:47] Speaker A: Right, right.
[00:48:48] Speaker B: All right, we got time for a couple more here.
Let's go to do we still entertain angels? This one comes from Hebrews chapter 13 where the Hebrew writer Timothy, as we've already established, says do not neglect 13 verse 2. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers. For by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.
And so he's probably referring to Abraham and where he has the angel of the Lord and a couple of others visit him and tell him about what's going to happen with the baby and all that in Genesis 18 and 19.
Well, and then of course they go into Sodom and Gomorrah with lot and the same ones. And so that's in mind. There could be others, but that is usually the one that people say it's talking about and it's like, okay, was that a one time thing that it only happened there and that's what he's referring to or is this something that that happened that time might happen some other times could still happen.
[00:49:52] Speaker A: The end of Judges presents a very interesting. I don't know who the figure is when he cuts up the concubine.
We don't really know fully. It seems like it's just an old man, but he seems a little more important than an old man coming into town.
[00:50:05] Speaker B: Wells.
[00:50:07] Speaker A: Correct. So you know, if. Is that one?
I don't know. We don't know for sure. Is it still happening today? I was looking this up and getting people's takes different takes on it. Some people think for sure, you know, well, why wouldn't. It's talking in that way. But the way that it is, the way that it's phrased, it's talking about what has taken place in the past. Some have in the past entertained angels. We assume that means, well, of course that, you know, we could still be entertaining angels.
I'm struggling to understand maybe what the purpose of that would be. Angels are now, I think, intended to serve us as Christians.
Could they then do it? Yeah, but this is kind of weird. Like we don't have the same entertainment mindset. And what I mean by that is like the same hospitality. Hospitality was with strangers.
We don't really have strangers into our home the way that they used to back then. We don't just invite people off the street. And so everybody that you have into your house has a background, has a history, has a mom and dad that we know. So this concept of some randos walking around, that it's like, hey, come on into the house. We'll just stay, keep you for a night. I think that was much more relevant back then. So could it happen? I'm not saying it couldn't today. I don't know. It's the other side of the coin of what you just talked about. Of like, okay, are demons, you know, like, what's the working of Satan? Well, what's the working of the angels? I know they're not bound, but what are they doing here?
You know, are we entertaining them?
I don't think our culture lends well toward us entertaining angels for that reason.
[00:51:42] Speaker B: But could it Facebook and see who they are and all that? You know.
[00:51:46] Speaker A: Exactly.
[00:51:46] Speaker B: It does kind of shrink that.
Yeah.
Where he says, like he's giving that as a reason to be hospitable to strangers for. Hey, to me, I take it as. We never know when you're gonna be entertaining an angel, like somehow, like, well, yeah, cuz you know, 3,000 years ago, or what I guess would be 2,000 at that point. 2,000 years ago, Abraham, you know, our.
He entertained some angels. So that's why you should. Like that's not gonna happen to you. But hey, somebody did one time that. That's right. It seems weird that way. Yeah. To say that that's a reason to do it.
But again, you know, applying it to our day. Does that mean that we're entertaining angels or we have a lot of opportunities to do that? I don't know. And we're so closed off to strangers these days anyway. I mean, it's very strange how that works. And so you're right that that is something that is far less likely if that were something that still occurred. And I'm not sold that it is. But can we still enter?
So the rule is we have to take a side on this. So is it possible to still entertain angels unaware?
[00:52:54] Speaker A: I'm gonna say, if we were open enough to it, yes.
I didn't. The. The sides that I read that were convincing didn't convince me big time. The sides that were not can, you know, that were against it also didn't convince me. There's reasons for it. You have that weird story of that one guy. I think it's like J.C. penning or whatever, like, came up and told you a bunch of things about who you were in your life and what was gonna happen or something like that, and then like, just disappeared.
That's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. I mean, if it was somebody else telling me other than my own brother, I'd be like, yeah, sure, buddy.
It happened. And so I don't know what that is. I don't know if that's another.
[00:53:36] Speaker B: Well, I had another guy and I don't know if he listens or not, but I think shout out to Ray, I believe it was his story also had a thing with. It was involving like a car accident or an engine catching on fire or whatever.
And this dude just out of nowhere shows up, saves the day, and then just gone, you know, like, turn to thank him and nobody there to thank kind of thing. And like, people have stories like that say I have a story like that, that I. I'm not saying he's an angel. And so he went, oh, he thinks he saw an angel. I don't know. I genuinely don't know. It was just strange how this dude out of nowhere just showed up, walked up. Mom and I were mid conversation. He walks up and interrupts and then just start. And stood there, I don't know, half an hour, telling me all kinds of stuff and about myself and kind of breaking.
Explaining who I was as a person and what my future was gonna look like. And not like predicting the future, but like, hey, if you make this choice, this is gonna happen and things that I made that choice and that's what happened kind of thing.
And so. And I'm not talking about like a psychic or, you know, palm reader kind of person, but just like, hey, you know, look out for this in your life, because this is. These are the things that happen when you do these kinds of things. And he was right. And it was very, very. And again, as soon it was over, we were like. He walked away. We're like, that was strange. And I couldn't, you know, I went to ask him another question or something. Couldn't see the. I don't know what happened. I never saw the guy again. And so now you're getting deep Jack Wilkie lore here at the end of this podcast. I don't know that because I wasn't being hospitable to an angel, unaware it was in the middle of a store, you know, buying a jacket for preaching camp, actually. And so, yeah, that was.
[00:55:22] Speaker A: But it's that strange thing happen.
[00:55:23] Speaker B: Yeah, you're right. The concept of, like, you just don't
[00:55:25] Speaker A: know comes out of nowhere.
[00:55:26] Speaker B: What? Yeah. So.
[00:55:27] Speaker A: So I'm gonna say yes, I think you can. I think we just need to be maybe more hospitable or in this day and age, it's really tough. It may come in the form of that where we are running into those people.
[00:55:37] Speaker B: Right. If it would.
I guess what you're saying is it would make sense if that were the explanation for that kind of thing where people like me and others have stories like that. I don't know. You never know. And if you have a story like that, I would love to hear it because again, I've met people who do have stories of strange encounters with people they couldn't explain, and that's that. So.
All right. Do we still entertain angels? We got. Let's go. Let's do one more and then we will save some.
I don't know if we'll do it next week, but we definitely have a lot more of these to get to, like Satan's fall. And if that is something that is discussed in Ezekiel.
What is Babylon and Revelation? What is baptism for the dead about? Who are the spirits in prison?
[00:56:19] Speaker A: First?
[00:56:19] Speaker B: Peter 3.
A favorite one of mine is what was the first sin ever committed? That's a fun one. So we're saving all of those. Oh, was Jesus really forsaken on the cross? We'll save that one. I mean, there's some really fun ones. And so we will get to those eventually, Lord willing. Let's finish up with the date of Job, I believe because generally you hear people say it was arguably the first chronological book of the Bible. You know, other than obviously Genesis starts at creation, but as far as the main events. And then Moses wrote it later on, but that Job wrote it, or the events of Job happened long before Abraham. Sometime between Noah and Abraham is I Think a lot of times what people say so is I'm not taking that view. But is that your view on
[00:57:10] Speaker A: was. I take a different view now.
[00:57:13] Speaker B: See, we're much unfortunately.
[00:57:16] Speaker A: I know. Because that was the view of like. Well, it makes sense. It's patriarchal age. He's offering for his.
You know, this is a man who's acting as a priest, you know, between him and God. He is not an Israelite, you know, making intercession between his kids type of thing like these sacrifices. So clearly it's patriarchal age.
Looking at the time, you know, this of a rich man in wealth, where would this, you know, fully fit in? It would kind of make sense that this might be the first one written that goes way back. I'm going to put this somewhere in.
Matter of fact, that's what I was looking up right now. I meant to have this pulled up. Jobab is mentioned, and I believe it's in Exodus.
[00:58:00] Speaker B: Genesis 38.
[00:58:01] Speaker A: Genesis 38. There you go. I was thinking either early Exodus or. Yeah, so Genesis 38 mentioning this. This Jobab guy. And makes sense to me that this would be. Let me pull that up real fast.
[00:58:14] Speaker B: Yeah, so it has him in the lineage of Esau, if you take that. And I think that is pretty compelling view when you start to look at that. But also some of the other names there. If you have it pulled up, go ahead once you have it. But some of the people around him that. Well, because he's from the land of us and things like that, which seems very strange. But you also have some markers like teama knights, you know, the friends that come to visit him.
You get Eliphaz, the team of night. Well, that is something that comes up as well in that section of scripture.
I find it in.
[00:58:52] Speaker A: I have it pulled.
[00:58:53] Speaker B: I'm trying to find Genesis 36, 34. Then Jobab died and who Sham of the land of the Temanites became king in his place. And so this would. If Jobab is Job, this is somebody that was around people who were of the team at nights. Well, that's also in Esau's lineage. And so not very far down the line from Esau either. Probably great grandson or so it might
[00:59:19] Speaker A: also make sense in light of him being a king, him having great wealth and. And what we see. So I'm gonna put it somewhere around there that this is going to be in the.
Somewhere around Jacob's time is gonna be my guess still. Obviously in the patriarchal age. Still makes sense.
Don't know that it was the first written you know, perhaps with. With Moses writing the Pentateuch, that. Yes, Job, that still places him as the first written in terms of the date.
I think it would put him somewhere around that time.
Yeah, because it doesn't talk about his father in the. In the book of Job. Just looking at it here, it does mention that, you know, his Jobab's father. In this verse 33, Bina died. Jobab, the son of Zerah of Bozrah, became king. In his place, Jobab died.
Might be a stretch with the Jobab thing, but I do think that whether that's him or not, I'm gonna put him probably sometime in that time range.
[01:00:22] Speaker B: All right. So one other things I think I want to throw in that is the ending of the Septuagint version of Job, which is the Greek Old Testament. A lot of people prefer the Greek Old Testament to the Hebrew Old Testament.
That's a whole other argument for another day. I think it's pretty interesting. I don't know that I go that far, but it is. It's helpful. I mean, it's worth looking at sometimes.
This is in the Septuagint ending of Job. And Job died, being old and full of days. And it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ossus on the borders of Idumea, which is the land of the Edomites in Arabia. And his name before was Jobab. And having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Enon. He himself was the son of his father, Zaire, one of the sons of Esau of his mother, Basora, so that he was the fifth from Abraham or from Abram.
And it goes on to list a bunch of kings that live there, and it says, list his friends and all of those things. And so in the Septuagint, it's very much saying, this is that guy that's mentioned in Genesis 36.
And so that does some interesting things, because one of the reasons why people put it as, like, the really old date is the behemoth and Leviathan dinosaur claim.
Okay, well, these must have been, like, right after the flood, before that all died out.
If those things are things that are literal creatures walking around later on again in the time of Esau's grandson. So really around the time that Joseph was doing his thing is when Job's going through what he's going through.
That's pretty interesting.
[01:01:59] Speaker A: That is very interesting.
[01:02:00] Speaker B: That changes the.
The chronology that is often seen In a lot of different ways.
[01:02:08] Speaker A: That's very interesting. Here's a little add on here.
Does Job get new kids or are his kids resurrected at the end?
[01:02:15] Speaker B: I.
Resurrection is a tough stretch. It's a tough one to hold on. I mean, like, I believe resurrection happens, but it would be if that was the first time that it happened. There's not a lot made of it. Whereas other resurrections in the Bible, it's a pretty big deal.
[01:02:31] Speaker A: Yeah, it's an interesting thing because of the number. Like, why does he get. He doubles everything, but he only sticks with 10 kids, you know, and there's a level of man, you lose your kids. Like, it's one thing losing cattle, you lose your kids, oh, well, you got some new ones. Like, that's great. But that doesn't exactly replace the ones that were lost. I'm not saying it is resurrection, but I have heard that take before that because it sticks with the 10 kids and everything else is doubled or tripled or ever that this is him getting his kids back.
But I was curious if you had any thoughts on that.
[01:03:04] Speaker B: So, yeah, I don't take it that way. It's funny that at one point watched a Bible project thing on Job and he's going, yeah, he's from this land called us, which, you know, is kind of like just saying Timbuktu. Like, it might not have even been a real place and this might not have even been a real person. And I like, no, this is very much a real person. And I think one of the reasons why I like this Genesis 36 interpretation is it grounds him. It gives him a genealogy, like, and it puts him in a place again around the Temanites. His friends are temanites. These are literal people in literal places.
This really did happen. And whether his kids rose from the dead or he had more children or whatever the case may be, this is a very powerful story and not just an allegory of man. Let's tell a story about a guy who went through a bunch of garbage and you know, like, no, there's something more to that. So a very interesting one, at least in my mind. So, okay, as we said, we've got a lot more on the list and I don't know if we're doing it next week. If you guys like it enough, if you have more to add to the list, if I get messages about it and indicating there's more interest, if we get a lot of deep end comments or whatever, we would love to. So just briefly, we went over what are the nephilim I took that they are just famous, powerful men. Joe took that they were the children of fallen angels and women.
We looked at who wrote Hebrews. I think we both took Timothy. We took. Who is the man of lawlessness. I tried to make a case for the Roman emperors, but we both ended up with the high priest.
What was Paul's thorn in the flesh, Joe? I think you took the eyesight and I took Alexander the coppersmith.
And let's see, do we still entertain angels? I think I said yes. I think you said yes.
And then the date of Job. So we didn't disagree as much as I was hoping we would.
[01:04:58] Speaker A: We may get into some in the next one.
[01:05:01] Speaker B: Yeah. Why a Song of Solomon in the Bible? That one might be reason for that. Was Jesus really forsaken on the cross? Again? There's. There's a lot of interesting stuff there with Jonah. Was it a whale or a fish?
There's a lot more to get into, so, yeah, keep an eye out for that. Always fun to open the Bible and take a different look at things. So appreciate you for listening. Any final thoughts, Joe?
[01:05:24] Speaker A: Nope.
[01:05:25] Speaker B: All right, that's all we got for this one, and we'll talk to you on the next one.
[01:05:38] Speaker A: Sat.
