Field notes on the biblical text, divine council, and the ancient world. Working-class IT guy in Ohio. Door open.
Ohio
Joined April 2022
- Tweets8.1K
- Following839
- Followers635
- Likes5.7K
Pinned Tweet
Paul opens Romans by calling himself a doulos of Christ Jesus, and the English versions can’t agree on what that means. The LSB and the NLT print “slave.” The KJV, ESV, NIV and NRSV print “servant.” The NKJV and NASB split the difference with “bondservant.” The NET text says “slave,” and its footnote admits that the traditional “servant” doesn’t fit, because the Greek word doesn’t describe a free person serving someone else.
The choice matters because of what “servant” does in English. English servant implies wages and the option of leaving, which removes the force of the contrast with freedom. Webster’s 1828 dictionary drew the same line: a servant’s subjection to a master is voluntary, and a slave’s is not.
So why would Paul call himself that? He isn’t saying he’s employed by Christ. He’s saying he belongs to Christ. Think of it this way.
He works for her. That is employment.
He belongs to her household. That is belonging.
One is employment and one is belonging, and English only really has the first.
Murray Harris, who wrote the standard study of the word, defines a slave as someone whose person and service belong wholly to another. He also notes that Greek has one word that specifically means slave and about six that can be rendered servant. Paul picked the specific one. N. T. Wright translates Romans 1:1 as “a slave of King Jesus,” and he sets the opening line against Caesar, whose titles included “son of god” and whose birthday was announced as “good news.” Paul writes to Rome, to the center of that claim, and begins by saying who owns him.
Part of the reason translators backed away is that most English readers now hear the word and think of American chattel slavery. Paul’s readers didn’t. They heard the Roman category, and the ESV’s own study note grants that Roman slavery was a different institution from the one in North America. Hiding the word doesn’t fix the misunderstanding. It removes what Paul actually said.
Paul also had a second register available. In Hebrew, “servant of Yahweh” was an honor title for Moses, David and the prophets. In Rome, doulos was a degrading label. Paul wears the Roman word and claims the Hebrew honor at the same time, and the two arrive together. That is why “servant” can’t carry both.
The word isn’t uniform everywhere. It is also used of Christ in Philippians 2:7, where “slave” in the usual sense would not fit, so context decides the weight. In Romans 1:1, set beside Romans 6:16 and the Caesar contrast, the weight is ownership.
Everyone serves some master. In Romans, Paul says plainly who his is.
I covered the longer argument in What Is a King? Slave to Christ.
jayms.com/what-is-a-king-sla…
2
4
193
Church people see the skulls in my office and recalculate me. Memento mori was a Christian practice for over 1000 years. Monks kept skulls on their desks. Puritans carved winged skulls on gravestones. Who else keeps one on the desk?
jayms.com/king-in-yellow-bor…
ALT Memento mori and the skulls on the desk
The first person to draw up a fixed list of Christian Scripture was excommunicated for it. Marcion, a shipowner from Sinope, out of the Roman church by AD 144. The church was using its books long before a man attacking them forced a list. Strange start isnt it?
jayms.com/marcions-canon-fir…
ALT Excommunicated for a list
In 1 Thessalonians 5:27 Paul charges them before the Lord to have the letter read to all the brothers and sisters. That may be the earliest document in the New Testament and its already demanding a public reading under oath. Wild how early that is.
jayms.com/when-was-the-new-t…
ALT Read under oath
1
60
James McLaughlin retweeted
Thanks for 400 followers! You all are crazy for following me.
Anyway, I’ve posted quite a bit about historical-critical scholarship in the past, but as a dialectical jester, I think it’s time to turn my criticism toward the discipline itself.
I’m going to examine what I consider to be its most questionable underlying assumptions, including those found in conservative scholarship, though that won’t be my primary focus.
My contention is that some of these assumptions are so foundational that, once challenged, entire scholarly frameworks begin to collapse. I want to examine how much of what passes for established scholarship actually rests on conclusions demonstrated by the evidence, and how much rests on assumptions that scholars have simply inherited.
Isaiah 24 has God punishing the host of heaven up above and the kings of the earth down below in the same verse. Why lump those 2 together? Both got handed authority and both blew it. Then Yahweh reigns on Mount Zion in front of his elders.
ALT Divine Council Index entry for Isaiah 24:21-23 on jayms.com
Full Divine Council Index entry with the sources is here jayms.com/bible-study-tools-…
19
James McLaughlin retweeted
I have written about this in my novel The Sons Of Herod
amzn.eu/d/0hexnaov
2,000 YEARS AGO, A MYSTERIOUS PROPHET CLAIMED HE COULD REVEAL SACRED OBJECTS HIDDEN BY MOSES.
THE ROMANS KILLED HIS FOLLOWERS BEFORE HE COULD SHOW THEM.
Around 36 CE, just a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus, another religious figure appeared in Samaria claiming he could reveal something extraordinary.
We don't even know his name.
History remembers him simply as the Samaritan Prophet.
The Jewish historian Josephus recorded the account in Antiquities of the Jews, written in the first century CE.
According to Josephus, this man began gathering followers by claiming he knew where sacred objects belonging to Moses had been buried beneath Mount Gerizim.
Mount Gerizim was the holiest place in Samaritan religion. Their ancient temple had been destroyed more than a century earlier, and their people believed a future prophet like Moses would eventually restore their religion.
Then this mysterious man appeared, claiming he could reveal sacred objects hidden there.
People believed him.
They began gathering in a village called Tirathana, preparing to climb the mountain together. Josephus tells us that many arrived carrying weapons.
But they never made it.
Pontius Pilate, the same Roman governor who had sentenced Jesus to death, sent soldiers to block the roads leading up the mountain.
Roman cavalry and infantry attacked the gathering.
People were killed. Others were captured. Several leading figures were later executed.
And the promised sacred objects were never revealed.
The Samaritan leaders complained to the Roman governor of Syria, accusing Pilate of killing people who had not intended to rebel against Rome.
The complaint was taken seriously.
Pilate was ordered to return to Rome and answer for his actions. He was removed from his position, and his ten-year rule in Judea came to an end.
An unnamed religious figure appeared around the same time as Jesus, claimed he could reveal sacred objects connected to Moses, gathered a large following, and set off a chain of events that helped end Pontius Pilate's career.
We don't know whether the prophet himself was killed. We don't know what happened to his surviving followers.
And we have absolutely no evidence that the objects he promised to reveal actually existed.
Josephus even portrays the man as a deceiver, although we only have his account to work with.
What interests me is how little we hear about these other religious figures who appeared around the same time as Jesus.
There were people claiming to be prophets, promising divine signs, and gathering followers throughout the region.
Some were killed. Some disappeared from history. Others became the centre of religious movements.
And this particular man, whose name wasn't even preserved, was involved in one of the final incidents of Pontius Pilate's career.
Wesley Huff says you are more broken than you could imagine and in the same breath more loved and more capable of extraordinary things than you could imagine. The fraud voice only lets me hold the first half. Which half do you get stuck on?
jayms.com/king-in-yellow-wal…
ALT The fraud voice stops halfway through the sentence
2
3
106
James McLaughlin retweeted
I like Mike Winger. I really do. But since he felt compelled to weigh in on Wes Huff, I suppose I’ll return the favor.
First, did y’all catch the “Before any of you even knew @WesleyLHuff, I did” line?
Well, glory be, @MikeWingerii! How impressive. Should we applaud now or wait for the autobiography?
Then came, “I still consider him a friend.”
Well, why WOULDN’T you? Unless, of course, you were about to throw him under the bus.
Oops.
And what’s with all the smiling and nervous laughter? You’re discussing something you insist is “super serious,” yet you’re practically giggling through it. Interesting presentation, Mike.
“The allegations are serious.”
Serious to whom? Academia? Certainly. They have standards, procedures, and investigations for precisely this reason.
But to the rest of us? Are we supposed to clutch our pearls over the HORRORS of having been exposed to Wes Huff?
He’s submitted the matter to the appropriate academic institutions. What exactly would you like him to do now? Publicly flog himself? Beg forgiveness from the YouTube Council of Christian Accountability?
And Mike, remember when you said Wes was amazing on Joe Rogan?
Did you mean it?
Because even if every academic allegation against Wes were ultimately proven true, would that somehow erase the impact of his appearance on Rogan?
Of course not. But you’re “concerned.”
So help me understand this cute little public moral obligation you suddenly feel for X.
Are you speaking as a concerned friend? (Now you know that’s a good one 😂) Or have you appointed yourself spokesman for the Christian community again, graciously demanding transparency on behalf of us poor, helpless believers?
Especially when you’ve already admitted you DON’T know the full truth yourself?
Here’s a thought: Let the qualified institutions investigate. Let the evidence speak. And let the man answer for whatever they actually establish.
You don’t have to publicly distance yourself from someone to demonstrate your commitment to integrity.
And you certainly don’t have to dress it up as friendship.
Just be you, Mike. Nobody needs a carefully cushioned public rebuke of Wes Huff masquerading as some courageous act of Christian leadership.
👉 From where I’m sitting, it looks less like accountability and more like you finding the nearest ladder while making sure we all know how reluctantly you’re climbing it. Brava, Miguel.
There. Now we can still be friends, right?
Let us know how Wes answers you when you ask him that. 😉
I’ve waited to say more until Wes could give his update. But I feel morally compelled to share this now and hope it is a service to the Christian community and that things move in a more transparent direction soon with my friend, Wes Huff.
youtube.com/live/_oDotgbGbF0…
At 2 in the morning the everything is trash verdict feels like clarity. The tell I use is simple. Real seeing is harder and it branches. The verdict offers relief. If the clarity comes with permission to stop its a counterfeit. Ever caught it doing that?
jayms.com/king-in-yellow-eye…
ALT The tell of the counterfeit clarity
Jesus says the right cheek, which means a backhand, the slap a superior gave an inferior. The Mishnah (Bava Kamma 8:6) fined it double an open hand slap because it was the more degrading blow. Real harm to you or somebody else is a different situation.
jayms.com/go/iiab-turn-the-o…
Does it say in the Bible how many times we should turn the other cheek? I know the phrase "an eye for an eye leaves the world blind" or some shit like that, but why are we just allowing these blatant acts of disrespect to happen?
1
140
Clement of Rome writes to Corinth around AD 95 about a leadership fight and pulls from apostolic writings with no intro formula at all. No case made for why they count. You only skip that step with texts nobody is questioning. Makes sense right?
jayms.com/did-the-early-chur…
ALT Clement skips the argument
4
124
Daniel 7 says thrones were set in place. Plural. Then only the Ancient of Days takes a seat. The court sits and the books are opened. Then 1 like a son of man comes with the clouds and gets the kingdom handed to him. So who is sitting in the other thrones?
ALT Divine Council Index entry for Daniel 7:9-14 on jayms.com
Full Divine Council Index entry with the sources is here jayms.com/bible-study-tools-…
2
54
Scylla has 6 heads on 6 necks and takes 6 men. Odysseus knows the count going in. He steers into it because the whirlpool loses everyone and he doesnt warn the crew. The film turned her into an octopus. Where did the math go?
jayms.com/nolans-odyssey-eve…
ALT Scylla and the count of six
2
126
What if Noah's Ark Wasn't a Boat? youtube.com/shorts/z8ykEIGo0… via @YouTube
1
92
Started using The Greek New Testament Study Bible Notes with my study of Romans.
A few notes for those who geek out for the Greek.
Romans 1:1
Christou Iesou
Some copies read "Jesus Christ" and others "Christ Jesus". The editors prefer "Christ Jesus", which may stress that Jesus is the Messiah.
Romans 1:3
genomenou
The phrase describes God's Son. Paul usually uses ginomai, "become", rather than the usual word for "be born". That may hint he means Jesus existed before his birth, not only his birth.
I tried to explain how badly The Da Vinci Code mangles Nicaea and got back I would never watch something like that. You cant refute an error you refuse to look at. Paul read their altars and quoted their poets on Mars Hill. How else do you answer it?
jayms.com/king-in-yellow-bor…
ALT You cannot refute what you will not look at
1
3
170
Romans day 1. Paul writes his longest letter to a church he has never visited and spends the first 7 verses on 1 sentence that defines the gospel. Wright reads it as an announcement before it is an experience. God’s promised king came from David and was marked out as Son by rising from the dead.
He sends this to Rome where Caesars titles included son of god and his birthday was announced as good news. Paul hands those words to a Jewish man Rome crucified. Then he sends ambassadors because a king claims a world that way, and verse 6 puts the Roman Christians inside it.
If the gospel is news about a king, what changes in how you hear it?
Takeaway: Jesus is king and that news calls for an answer.
I’m working through Romans over the next couple of months, and I’d like you to read along.
Romans is Paul’s longest letter, and it’s still not a long book. I’ve split it into 65 short sections, so each day’s reading takes a few minutes. Every day I’ll post the section here with what I’m seeing in it, and you can tell me what you’re seeing in the comments. That’s the whole format. You don’t need a background in Bible study, and if you’ve been reading Scripture for thirty years there’s room for you too.
How to follow along
Open
jayms.com/bible-study-app/?u…
Click Plan in the upper right.
Check Match Psalm if you’d like a psalm paired with each reading. This is extra and completely optional.
Select Romans with N.T. Wright.
Click Jayms note in the bottom right corner to read my notes on the section.
I’m leaning on N.T. Wright’s Romans for Everyone for the pace and for a lot of the reading. If you want the books, here they are: Part 1 and Part 2. You don’t need them to follow along. The reading and the notes stand on their own.
amazon.com/dp/B0DHST4H2K?tag…
amazon.com/dp/B0DLR1B2TB?tag…
I will be post the first section tomorrow Nov 13, 2026 please join and follow along.
2
4
165