The Hebrew word translated “offspring” [seed] is a collective singular. The text anticipates the ongoing struggle between human beings (the woman’s offspring) and deadly poisonous snakes (the serpent’s offspring). An ancient Jewish interpretation of the passage states: “He made the serpent, cause of the deceit, press the earth with belly and flank, having bitterly driven him out. He aroused a dire enmity between them. The one guards his head to save it, the other his heel, for death is at hand in the proximity of men and malignant poisonous snakes.”

Even this is generous. To say that “The text anticipates the ongoing struggle…” infers that there is some degree of validity to the cause and effect relationship between the story and the enmity. More clearly, this is a classic example of the “just so stories” which permeate mythical literature to explain certain features of the world.

1. The “two days” in Mark 14:1 refer to waking days and all the events of 11:20 to 14:11 occur on 12th of Nissan. This, however, does not match with John.
2. The sacrifice required in Exodus is to occur after sunset (despite ALL tradition otherwise), meaning it occurred at the start of the 14th of Nissan rather than at the end. Then the days in Mark and John are treated as traditional Jewish sunset-sunset days instead of waking days, so that the events in Mark 14:1-11 occurred on the 12th of Nissan.
3. Identify the waking day which starts at sunrise on the 15th of Nissan as the Passover day from which all relative time periods are referenced. In this case, both Mark and John would use “day” to mean waking days, so that the events of Mark 14:1-11 occurred at the end of the 13th of Nissan.

Option 3 is the most compelling and may be correct – it eliminates what would otherwise be an eventless day on the 13th of Nissan. In that case, the timing proposed by the claim of fulfillment would be accurate but we still have what is an otherwise highly ambiguous parallel.

It’s also worth noting here that John and the synoptics don’t agree on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, which may account for some of the timing issues noted above. John prefers that Jesus’ death align with the Passover sacrifice, but that timing is unlikely.

1. It isn’t animal (bull, goat or cow) [9:14, 10:4]
2. It came through the eternal spirit [9:14]
3. It was brought to the ‘true’ heavenly tabernacle [9:24]
4. It is the priest’s own blood [9:25]

Of course, there isn’t any real justification given for these assertions, or why they solve the problem. It’s all just theological posturing to try and make the Christian story sound more acceptable in spite of its inconsistencies with Judaism.

The Hebrews passage also relies heavily on the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 to support the “once for all” concept. See #295 regarding that argument.

“17 I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not close at hand. A star will march forth out of Jacob, and a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the skulls of Moab, and the heads of all the sons of Sheth. 18 Edom will be a possession, Seir, his enemies, will also be a possession; but Israel will act valiantly. A ruler will be established from Jacob; he will destroy the remains of the city.“

Hard to see how Jesus’ ministry fits this description, and the verses cited in John and Galatians don’t help shed any light on this.

“Now, O Lord God of Israel, keep the promise you made to your servant, my father David, when you said, ‘You will never fail to have a successor ruling before me on the throne of Israel, provided that your descendants watch their step and obey my law as you have done.’”

This caveat is added here and in 2 Chronicles 33:8 despite that fact that it is absent from the account in 1 Chronicles 17, where the chronicler was respecting the tradition of the passage mirrored in 2 Samuel 7. Further, we’re then told that Yahweh affirms this caveat in a response to Solomon in 2 Chronicles 7:19-21, where he says:

“19 But if you people ever turn away from me, fail to obey the regulations and rules I instructed you to keep, and decide to serve and worship other gods, 20 then I will remove you from my land I have given you, I will abandon this temple I have consecrated with my presence, and I will make you an object of mockery and ridicule among all the nations. 21 As for this temple, which was once majestic, everyone who passes by it will be shocked and say, ‘Why did the Lord do this to this land and this temple?’”

So, all of this is clearly written from the perspective of somebody who is writing the events of the Babylonian exile back into the narrative as part of an effort to (a) explain away the failed hopes of the earlier texts as a consequence of religious unfaithfulness, and (b) foster support for the restoration of the temple and dedication to the religious structure through a combination of fear mongering and hope for the future. These are the seeds of the messianic culture which gave rise to Christianity.

Upon establishing that perspective, we can look at the mediator \ advocate \ intercessor spoken of throughout Job (most clearly in Job 9, 16 and 33) as a lower, personal deity (like a guardian angel) who interacts with the council on Job’s behalf. It’s likely that this figure is also envisioned as the redeemer of Job 19:25. We can then see verses 26-27 as building upon that perspective to say that as Job approaches death this intercessor will petition the divine king to come down from the heavenly realm to stand on the earth to speak with Job face to face to explain the tragedies that have transpired. Verse 28 then envisions Job’s friends asking how they could possibly seek vengeance on God if he comes to earth and his explanation reveals that he (God) truly is the source of the ruin.

That said, I don’t really know whether this is the best way to understand this passage – but it makes a lot of sense to me. The passage does seem to speak of a redeemer figure, a theophany and possibly a resurrection (though that would be inconsistent with other passages in Job). These all certainly can be related to the orthodox picture of Jesus and so it’s possible that there’s something here – but it is extremely difficult to discern and any interpretation should be considered uncertain.

‘You are my son!’ The Davidic king was viewed as God’s “son” (see 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26-27). The idiom reflects ancient Near Eastern adoption language associated with covenants of grant, by which a lord would reward a faithful subject by elevating him to special status, referred to as “sonship.” Like a son, the faithful subject received an “inheritance,” viewed as an unconditional, eternal gift. Such gifts usually took the form of land and/or an enduring dynasty. See M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184-203, for general discussion and some striking extra-biblical parallels.

Also see “King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature” (Collins 2008) for a more exhaustive discussion of the historical context behind messianic divine sonship.

This particular Psalm is closely related to 2 Samuel 7 (see #53) and this reveals another shared influence between Christianity and the Qumran community, who latched on to both of these passages in support of the concept of messianic divine sonship (per 4Q174). See #152 for additional discussion.

As with the previous entries for this Psalm (#62 and #64), the divine sonship assigned to Jesus is therefore a derivative of the attribution of the messianic persona, where the cultural origins of Christianity emphasized this aspect of the messiah.

These three geographical designations may refer to provinces established by the Assyrians in 734-733 b.c. The “way of the sea” is the province of Dor, along the Mediterranean coast, the “region beyond the Jordan” is the province of Gilead in Transjordan, and “Galilee of the nations” (a title that alludes to how the territory had been overrun by foreigners) is the province of Megiddo located west of the Sea of Galilee.

There are three interpretive options to v. 14: (1) In spite of Israel’s sins, the Lord will redeem them from the threat of death and destruction (e.g., 11:8). However, against this view, the last line of 13:14 probably means that the Lord will not show compassion to Israel. (2) The Lord announces the triumphant victory over death through resurrection (cf. KJV, ASV, NIV). However, although Paul uses the wording of Hosea 13:14 as an illustration of victory over death, the context of Hosea’s message is the imminent judgment in 723-722 b.c. (3) The first two lines of 13:14 are rhetorical questions without explicit interrogative markers, implying negative answers: “I will not rescue them!” (cf. NAB, NASB, NCV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT). The next two lines in 13:14 are words of encouragement to Death and Sheol to destroy Israel. The final line announces that the Lord will not show compassion on Israel; he will not spare her.

Interpretation #2 probably wouldn’t even be on anybody’s radar if Paul hadn’t done it first. Also, note that a few short verses later in Hosea we have the infamous threat that “…because she rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, their infants will be dashed to the ground – their pregnant women will be ripped open.” This disturbing image is hardly an appropriate context for declaring victory over death.