The “sin offering” in Leviticus 4 has had a significant role in the development of a doctrine of the atonement. The article considers further what Leviticus means by sin or offense, sin offering or offense offering, mistake, guilt offering or fault offering, stain on the person and on the sanctuary, violation, reparation , ransom or covering or cleansing or atonement, and pardon and forgiveness. It notes how these find expression in Israel’s history, and considers how they illumine the significance of the death of Jesus for the Jewish people and for the world. It notes that Leviticus does not talk about wrath, propitiation of God, or substitutionary punishment. It concludes that looking at the death of Jesus in light of its provision, one can see that he dissolved our stain, won a victory over the forces of death embodied in our stain, made reparation to God on our behalf, embodied God’s gracious willingness to carry us in our waywardness, and drew the world to seek God’s pardon, but that God is concerned for justice as well as mercy and can also let his people and the world carry their own waywardness. 

The article is posted on the Theology page.

This is a contribution for an upcoming book on “Biblical Justice,” for which I was asked to write the chapter on Ezra-Nehemiah. I think it is right that the expression mishpat usedaqah, which is usually translated “justice and righteousness,” is the biblical term for (social) justice), so in this paper I look at Ezra-Nehemiah in light of that. It’s posted under “Writings.”

It’s sometimes said that Proverbs has a bumper-sticker theology, which may be an insult or a compliment. It may suggest brief, pithy insights, or brief, pithy oversimplifications. Either way, bumper-sticker statements can be clever, confrontational, and humorous, though also serious. They are based on human insight or human experience, and they are thus contextual, culturally-rooted, and possibly puzzling to someone from another culture. Clever, confrontational, humorous, and those other descriptions do also apply to Proverbs. How do its aphorisms compare with bumper stickers? In this paper, I focus on the great central section of the book, Proverbs 10:1–22:16, where aphorisms are most consistently concentrated. I first consider a number of characteristics common to some bumper stickers and some aphorisms in Proverbs. Second, I consider how the aphorisms differ rhetorically from the bumper stickers. And third, I note two key distinctive theological features of the aphorisms.

Here is a Q and A with John on Biblical Israel and Modern Israel:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=750653543607754

John says that Jesus is the embodiment of God, the God of Israel, so
one would expect that looking at Yahweh would tell you things you can
see in Jesus as John portrays him, and that looking at John’s Jesus
would tell you things you can see in Yahweh. This paper considers what
Yahweh was like as the God of grace and truth, in Israel’s story from
beginning to end, in his speaking in the Torah where he lays the law
down, in his speaking through prophets where he confronts his people
with warnings and promises, and in the Psalms and elsewhere where he
shows himself open to his people’s protests as well as their
enthusiasm about him. And to that portrait of grace and truth, at each
point the paper juxtaposes what John’s Jesus was like.

On the Theology page see: “How Yahweh Finds Embodiment in John’s Jesus”

John has just completed a draft of this and it is posted under Prophets.

Theodicy has become a significant topic in Old Testament study, and
the Psalms are a natural work to approach through this lens. They are
often concerned with the way Israel or individual Israelites find life
not working out as one might expect on the basis of Yahweh’s power and
Yahweh’s commitment to them. But theodicy is by its nature a
theologico-philosophical topic of discussion concerning questions
about God’s nature and God’s involvement in the world, and
characteristically the Psalms do not exactly engage in such
theologico-philosophical reflection. They do address Yahweh and
address people over matters that have become the concerns of theodicy,
yet their own direct concern is not to find insight on those questions
but to give expression to or model or resource a way of living with
the experiences that issue in the theodicy question.

In this paper posted under “Writings,” John seeks to engage with the way the Psalms
themselves address Yahweh in praise, protest, and thanksgiving, and
simultaneously address people in confession, appeal, and testimony,
with an awareness of the issues that modernity and postmodernity raise
in discussion of theodicy, but in a fashion not too bound by the
framework of that discussion.