Money is the root of all evil… right? That’s a very popular misquote of 1 Timothy 6:10 … or is it?
Some will correct me and say, well it’s actually the “love of money” according to scripture, but is that actually any different?
Perhaps a better verse is Hebrews 13:5
Let your way of life be free from the love of money, being content with what you have, for He Himself has said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.”
Following Jesus is a way of life. If you are a Christian, you are an exile and alien. I have a book called “this is the way” which is a word play off the Disney Star Wars Mandalorian series. it’s a consideration for when you have given your whole life towards something you always thought was right, later to find that maybe you were off a little bit…
How much do you give to the Lord?
In the classic Old Testament Hebraic mindset the answer should be, “all that you have been given.” In other words, everything is the Lord’s and should be given back to Him. You have simply been entrusted to the finances of the kingdom for a short time. This is the circular dance of grace. In our western thinking this is likely where we get the original audience’s interpretation of Biblical giving wrong… thinking that God just requires a tithe (confused with OT passages), or that there are no strings attached to Grace.
Is Grace free? Are there strings attached? I have a feeling some people are going to need to consider some deconstruction of what you might think the Bible says about money and giving and possibly even what the church has told you.
Grace is free but it also might have some strings attached. To be clear, Grace is totally free, but if you’re going to follow the Lord then you should follow the Lord with all that you are and have been given and freely give back all that you are and have been endowed with- which to some sounds like attached strings.
To most Americans the idea that God wants everything doesn’t sit very well. What would alter calls sound like if we told people the whole story before we asked them to put their hand up! We make it so easy to make a momentary decision to follow Jesus without truly calculating the investment. In a way the simple faith is beautiful and all you need to commit to Jesus; but in other regards, the covenant commitment should be approached with an allegiance that our current evangelical culture likely doesn’t spell out very well as they are rattling off the steps to salvation.
It even becomes more uncomfortable as Christian Americans when you ask somebody if they love money. Nearly every American does. That’s why Christians are so quick to try to explain how this verse means something different emphasizing the “LOVE OF” clause. Christian Americans are in a little bit of a wrestling match because they want to proclaim that they don’t love money; yet the giant mortgages, lifelong debt, and working around the clock every week say otherwise. It sure looks like we all love money, and that’s actually the implication of the scripture.
Is there really much difference to say that money is the root of all evil or the love of money is the root of all evil? In Biblical thinking it was basically the same. The complete cultural thought or mindset is perhaps better than the literal interpretation here. To those living next to me in America it would seem that one is essentially the same. If your life looks like you love money, you probably do and anything that separates you from complete devotion to the Lord is “EVIL” or “SATANIC.”
The word “love of money” is philarguros, literally, “a friend of silver.” This is a Greek verb that was used in the scriptural context to describe brothers and sisters of one body (which we like to call the church in present day language -that’s up for argument though.) I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen more destruction in “the church” than nearly anywhere else towards people. Of course, that doesn’t mean that I’m going to walk away from it either. Could this have been implied in this verse? But put the church aside and it’s interesting that we see this kind of destruction (tied to money) amongst family members as well. Seems like we have the hardest time getting along with our own family than anyone else, and at some point, your church should become your family. Seems the Biblical authors made this connection. Today, it would seem that money is root of more church problems and family dynamics than anything else I can think of.
So let me speak Greek for a moment. In Greek verb is the object of the action. The New Testament treats philarguros as coveting. Surely most Christians in America don’t covet money? And even worse churches don’t covet money, right?
One of my friends recently posted a picture that essentially said; “if the Bible says money is the root of all evil than why are so many churches asking for it.” Of course what followed was a discussion of how people are miss quoting the Bible… but my interjection is “are they?”
Don’t Christians in America want what everybody else has? Haven’t most of our churches made that a clear point? The church salaries and 401k’s should be equal to salaries and retirement packages within our world; the church building should be as nice as the finest of homes and business’? Was Solomon right in turning the tent tabernacle into a large edifice of gold? Did God smile on that?
Have I gotten under your skin yet? Shouldn’t Christian Americans have what everybody else has? Even though we are aliens in a foreign world, shouldn’t what the foreign world offers be part of our life as well? Can’t we also adapt this way of life as Christians? Can’t the exiles of Babylon have everything the new world has to offer without betraying their “lord?” This mindset is not within the thought of the biblical authors. In fact it’s the tragedy of the American entitlement mentality and Christianity.
-Perhaps the Amish had it right?
-perhaps the Essenes?
-how about those at Masada?
-the crusaders or reformers?
Yep this is messy and complicated. What did it mean in the culture that the Scriptures were written during “to be ruled by the love of money?” The scripture would seem to tell us it simply means to give more of your time, heart, and passion to something other than God… isn’t that every American I know?!
Essentially the Hebraic way of living is that your complete life is a gift. This gift is a reciprocal dance mirroring what God has given you. Total humility, complete giving back of what you have been given, and utter devotion to your Father.
In the hands of the follower of the Way, contentment is a sign of trust in the grace and mercy of God. From the biblical point of view, the only reason a man or woman can entertain contentment is because God is good. His provision is sufficient. Greed leads away from Him and towards the love of things of the world separating us from the Love of Christ.
Is money a necessary evil for a Christian? Is their kingdom money and worldly money? Does God not really care about the money? These are all great questions to this discussion.
You might remember when Moses asked God to enter the promised land God told him to be content with the answer. We typically think about contentment in the present sense, but this is God asking us to think bigger. The Hebrew form reminds us to think in future tense. Contentment is accepting God’s grace in the past, God’s gift today and God’s promise in the future. It’s a reciprocal dance and a way of life. It has very little to do with wealth, money, or entitlement.
Is the love of money or money itself the root of evil? I don’t really think it matters… what matters is that God wants all of us to mirror all of what God has given us. And from the biblical authors mindset money had very little to do with any of that kind of thinking. It is the posture of the heart.
If you have to ask the question, “is money or the joy of money the root of all evil?” Then you’re not thinking correctly (biblically) or probably living the kind of life God is asking you to live.
I have been into climbing for a long time. When I was in 8th grade (going into HS) our church hired a new youth HS pastor from Colorado named Steve Ledford that asked me and a friend to go to Devils Lake with Him to climb. I was athletic and had done some “bouldering” before but never been climbing on rope. That day my life changed, or was better, “influenced” forever. First Steve (although was later unfortunately let go by our church) went on to be one of my best mentors in life. I also went on to become a certified AMGA guide and climb more mountains than I can count including some of the largest in the world. But more importantly, I decided to dedicate a good part of my life to use the sport of climbing to introduce people to a better understanding of themselves and what God has for them. This last weekend a good friend of mine (Phil Reynolds) and I took our boys on an epic “climb” to learn some mountaineering basics and introduce them to some fundamental considerations of life. We took the time to share how every opportunity has the potential to shape your life and influence the lives of others, and how important it is to recognize and utilize these life moments.
It came about when the priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord had come up from the middle of the Jordan, and the soles of the priests’ feet were lifted up to the dry ground, that the waters of the Jordan returned to their place, and went over all its banks as before. Joshua 4:18 NASB
If you aren’t familiar with Hebrew, let me share something pretty basic about the language that you probably aren’t aware of, Stefan Schorch puts this best, “the Hebrew script is not able to record vowels, with the exception of the so-called vowel letters (matres lectionis), although the distinctiveness of a certain vocalization may carry important semantic information. As a result, the Hebrew Bible contains in fact a large number of words with different meaning, which had been homographs before the invention of the masoretic pointing.”[1]
Joshua 4:8 is a great example of the challenges that this has brought us in regard to interpretation. The verb used here means “to go up, climb, ascend” [עָלָה (ʿālâ)]. Notice the description in TWOT:
There are nearly 900 occurrences of the verb ʿālâ in the ot. The most common meanings in the simple tenses are “go up” (over 300 times), “come up” (over 160 times) and “ascend” (17 times). In the causative stems the two predominant meanings are “to bring up” (over 100 times) and “to offer” (77 times). The other 230 uses of the word are translated about 85 different ways in the av.[2]
To put this plainly, this single word in Hebrew takes on over 100 different English translations. Here is a list of some of the derivatives:
To many this is very confusing. How can the simple word for “climbing” in the Bible be translated in so many ways that often seem so far apart, possibly not even noticeably related when translated in English. This is why Biblical Hebrew is challenging to say the least. Context helps, but much of the older Hebrew scripture was guarded through oral handing down, that we have to simply take on a certain sense of trust with. In fact, the oldest written scriptures we have are at best from a few hundred years before the time of Christ yet represent “inspired writings” from what we like to think would have been original manuscripts lost many years before this but guarded and carried down (or up to us) by oral tradition. X44 is on a long video series on the church but when we finish, we will be unveiling perhaps the longest anticipated series yet on inspiration and inerrancy. This conversation will start to consider some of the points we will greatly consider in the upcoming X44 Youtube series on inspiration and inerrancy. But I won’t be getting much deeper into that today.
Many of our X44 readers know that the Masoretes decided when and where they would add the vowel points and I have to say alot rides on this and reads into our translations. Wikipedia would tell us that the Masoretes “were groups of Jewish scribe-scholars who worked from around the end of the 5th through 10th centuries CE. Each group compiled a system of pronunciation and grammatical guides in the form of diacritical notes (niqqud) on the external form of the Biblical text in an attempt to standardize the pronunciation, paragraph and verse divisions, and cantillation of the Hebrew Bible. The ben Asher family of Masoretes was largely responsible for the preservation and production of the Masoretic Text
So as if Biblical Hebrew isn’t hard enough to translate already, now that you know, you have to consider the fact that your English translation is highly influenced by this group of people that took the liberty to fill in a lot of blanks throughout the text. But this is me taking a second to teach Theology, let me return to my primary observation.
The Hebrew word “ala” in its most basic sense described what it meant to “CLIMB OR ASCEND.” In a Biblical sense the idea means that you are going to allow something to influence you or be the catalyst to influence others. Are you identifying and looking for a climb every day? Nearly every decision we make has the power to influence who we are and want to be before the Lord. We have the power to shape who we want to be or allow ourselves to digress based on the same process of influence.
This last weekend I led my boys and their best friends in life up a 900 foot egress of rock to a pinnacle where we camped on the top and firsthand watched the majestic splendors of the cosmos declared to the Lord. We also were steps from imminent death with one misplaced foot or handhold. This expedition will influence them forever. The Biblical words for climb mean so much. They describe how we learn, how we heal, how we stretch ourselves, and determine our pathway and live in spiritual balance. The words embody the course that is given to the Lord spiritually at nearly every decision and the allegiant obedient faith that characterizes the covenant relationship that we walk in each and every day.
How is your climb going? Are you each and every day considering where Jesus will lead? Are you approaching life as an open ascent to the cosmos that has been given to you? Do you see yourself as a shepherd guide to mentor others in this? If you haven’t figured it out with the over 100 different interpretations, THIS IS THE WAY.
[1] Stefan Schorch, “Dissimilatory reading and the making of Biblical texts: the Jewish Pentateuch and the Samaritan Pentateuch”, in Raymond F. Person, Jr. and Robert Rezetko (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (SBL Press, 2016), p. 113.
[2] Carr, G. L. (1999). 1624 עָלָה. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 666). Chicago: Moody Press.
[3] Carr, G. L. (1999). 1624 עָלָה. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 666). Chicago: Moody Press.
Some guys are into golf, or hunting, or sports… I am into all of those things but my passion for Jesus and discipleship is not only my life mission but the joy of my life that outweighs everything else and that philosophy not only “filters” into everything else in life, but actually drives them.
MY HISTORY WITH SOCCER
I played club soccer when I was young in the 90’s and played at my small Christian High School leading them to small school “state” twice. My nickname was “the beast” which was given to me at the Christian school I attended, and I am sure had some theological undertones as that was when every Christian kid was reading Frank E. Peretti‘s “this present darkness series.” I had several scholarship offers to play at secular colleges but went on to play at Moody Bible Institute instead (as I had a clear spiritual calling on my life that I identified at an early age) and was part of the national championship team in 1993. I only played in college for a year and decided to “go professional.” I had played previously in friendlies with the Milwaukee Wave which opened the door to an invitation to join the Chicago fire during their inaugural year with the MLS in 1998 but turned them down (because I would have been the youngest person on the team and likely wouldn’t have seen any playing time) to go play soccer in Europe for Conway United. I played a few practice matches with the Fire before I left for Wales and was glad to have been a small part of the organization during the year that they went on to win both MLS Cup ’98 and the 1998 U.S. Open Cup Final, both in a five-day timespan. Since those days I continue to be part of the soccer world. I’ve been a licensed soccer referee for over 30 years and am a well credentialed coach at nearly all levels. I still play regularly and plan to play until the day I die. All four of my boys have been raised with a ball at their feet since they could walk and have played in club and with the local Christian schools.
MT ZION AND SOCCER
My wife and I have coached at the small local Christian school (that is connected with Mt Zion, the church we attend) in our town since my oldest son Ty was old enough to play for them. My wife and I have built this program from day one around Jesus. Mt Zion Soccer has a reputation for character development and discipleship. Our (only) goal is to build and impact lives positively for Jesus. I have very little concern if we win or lose but the journey that we will travel together for the kingdom – surprisingly we have won our conference nearly every year and were undefeated last year (funny how kingdom principles work that way). One of the things our program has been known for is teaching encouragement. Each practice we encourage the kids to speak 44 words of encouragement to others as well as other kingdom principles. We will regularly have devotions at practice, but in a sense, the entire practice is devotional. We make it our personal goal as coaches to have at least one strategic or purposeful interaction with each student at every game and practice. We asked a well experienced husband and wife couple named Israel and Ivanna to join us coaching. Their sole job was to individually coach each kid. Israel is a soccer expert and coached skill while Ivanna took it on herself to simply encourage and build up with words and build relationships at every opportunity.
As a sidebar, my good friend Steve Cassell regularly says club sports are “the devil” in his favorite “waterboy” accent and I have to largely agree with him. They regularly remove people from the local church culture community. Keep Jesus first and don’t compromise. Your kids are watching.
BE DILIGENT
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NASB You likely have the verse above memorized, but let’s rethink it. Be diligent –in Greek this word is Spoudazo.
That’s the word for this soccer season, it is actually where we get the English slang word “Spaz.” In its original language it implied a lot. Be diligent. Be eager. Be earnest. Be steadfast. Be immovable. Be consistent. Be kind. Be strong. Be loving. Be generous. Be energetic. Be relentless. (And so much more) …but in all of these be devotional & diligent unto the Lord.
We usually think of this verse in terms of academics. I remember growing up in Awana, this was the “STUDY” verse. But today, as I so frequently do on x44, I want to challenge you to deconstruct some of the poor theological presumptions you may have been given over the years about this verse. Paul isn’t telling us to memorize everything (although He may believe that as a Torah observant Jew that likely has the entire law memorized) – but this, in context, is not what this verse is about.
Hermeneutically, he is encouraging “being the person God approves.” Be diligent to present yourself, not your cognitive ability.
Study is certainly important, but it isn’t the goal. The goal is the person, completed in Christ. And that is the goal of our soccer season and very much our personal parenting and life coaching season!
We are coaching to focus on the “perfected” work of Jesus. We are focusing on overcoming, seeking victory, building up others, exercising and developing our spiritual giftset, and truly taking on the mind of Christ.
The verb Paul uses that we interpret as “accurately handling” is literally “cut correctly” (orthotomeo). This is sculpting language. The temple was fit and formed together like a puzzle without any fasteners. This image takes on the idea of that sense. Paul wrote in Greek but was thinking in Hebrew & that perspective is about doing, not just thinking, we see that the workman produces nothing if he only thinks about it. That the final result of things fitting so well in the kingdom is very much about the final result. Last year the Mt Zion school theme was to be a doer, the craftsman has to put his skills to work to produce the intended result. Being well intended or good hearted is great, but the kingdom calling is towards the final result of being fully formed by Jesus. Jesus’ discipleship was about the finished work, and that was a “here and now” statement not an eschatological “someday.” We have to put God’s words to work in our lives to produce the intended result – a finished workman for the work we are made and designed to do TODAY. The temple being fit and formed was just a foundational piece to the work that was supposed to have been done through it for the kingdom.
The objective of our life “expedition” is to become the master craftsman of ourselves through Jesus. Our goal is to be in continual production of a person approved by God. The “material” can actually be nearly anything in life.
This season we are going to get “cut” for Jesus. The goal is to become in peak spiritual condition and along the way we are going to learn the game of soccer, fine tune our skills, get physically fit, find the balance of life and become the best we can be in every measure; all the while well having as much fun as we can! Encouragement is going to “shape” our season!
X44 has a lot of slogans that we are reclaiming. For instance, “into the storm” has been borrowed by some with far-right political agenda’s but was first coined as a phrase in the first century of complete discipleship. We have an article on this. Another slogan we are taking back is “BURN THE SHIPS.”
Most people recognize the phrase “burn the ships” to be associated with Cortes, the great Spanish explorer who destroyed his entire fleet upon reaching the destination of his “mission”. Landing at present-day Veracruz, Mexico in 1519, he destroyed his ships so that when the going got rough his men would have no means of retreat. It was do or die trying. No going back, only pressing on. It was an act of total devotion to the mission they believed God had called them to.
There are likely a few things about this story that may surprise you. You might have guessed, that like so many Middle Ages pursuits of the day, part of the reason why this story is described as a “mission” was based on the need to evangelize the lost. Whether you’re describing the crusades, or likely any endeavor tied into governmental acquisition it was often done in the name of the Lord, right or wrong. In this sense, Cortes was thought to be on a mission from God. You might also be surprised to know that despite the well-known phrase “burn the ships” which has long been associated with Cortes, He didn’t actually burn the ships, he just “scuttled” or dismantled them beyond use. So why do we say he “burned the ships?” This phrase and action was actually pretty common to his day. It was often ordered and taken figuratively as an “ALL IN” or no turning back statement.
Agathocles of Syracuse in 310 BC, Emperor Julian in 363, William of Normandy in 1066 are likely better examples of people that actually “burned the ships” in the same regard (there are many others who did this, see the list below). Regardless, the idea started, or should have started and came to fruition anyway, with Israel and the Exodus. Not so much with “ships” but the idea of no turning back. It’s a great message and an attitude for which every Christian should strive to emulate. Christ calls us and calls us fully. complete discipleship means we are to die (or live in humble self-sacrifice) to everything else and live fully for the one who has given Himself for us through the giving of His life and asks us to live in the same way.
Some Historians question the motives of Cortes. Was he a man of God and all in for the kingdom? I believe so. I would actually say, perhaps more so than most of us are today. As you consider what it means to be “all in” for discipleship, consider the story of Cortes a bit more closely and what it really meant to “burn the ships.” Would you leave everything in the name of discipleship? Many of us say we will but not nearly to this extent.
Cortés made a special request in his letters to the emperor for special powers to be granted for evangelization and discipleship of his crew. He sought the powers for the Franciscans because his people and the natives were “so far from the proper remedies of our consciences,” but he feared the damage normal clerics may cause. [1] Cortés is shown in the writings of Díaz del Castillo, who was with him on the conquest, to have regularly and publicly given speeches and thanks to God to encourage the conversion. One such example is recounted in thorough detail in the Historia Verdadera, Vol. 2, Chapter 77, where Cortés is personally attempting to convert the Tlaxcalans. He is recounted as explaining the mission of the Spaniards to convert the natives and end human sacrifice. He also showed deference to the priest, Father de la Merced, which enabled the Spanish to obtain from the Tlaxcalans a newly constructed temple for Our Lord.[2]
The spiritual aspect of Cortés’s conquest was far more important than the terrestrial aspect. The gods of the Aztec peoples along with those in the remainder of Mexico demanded cruel and regular sacrifices. The Aztecs diligently provided them in cooperation and in conflict with their neighbors, and they have stood out as one of the most brutal empires in the history of the world. Thousands were offered up to the gods every year, including women and children. Sounds a bit like abortion in the US.
The conversion of the New World started with the order from Cortés to scuttle his ships and take over the nation. His passion for the conversion to Christ led Bartolomé de Las Casas, a Dominican friar, to write: “Through this captain, God opened the door for us to preach his holy gospel, and it was he who caused the Indians to revere the holy sacraments and respect the ministers of the church.”[3]
The term “burn the ships” adopted by Cortés reminds us that the Jesus’ challenge is to commitment for life. There is no turning back. God calls His disciples to be “all in.”
[1] Cortés, Hernán. Hernán Cortés: Letters from Mexico. Translated and edited by Anthony R. Pagden. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1971. Letter IV. Page 333.
(1) One account of the Danaan invasion of Ireland has it that upon landing, they burned their ships, causing a great mist to rise up and terrifying the inhabitants who thought the Danaans arrived in a cloud.
(2) In Book V of the Aeneid, the Trojan women attempt to burn the ships after they arrive on Sicily, but a rainstorm thwarts their plans.
(3) In 351 BC, Sidon rebelled against Ochus, the King of Persia. They burned all the ships in the harbor to prevent anyone from fleeing. When it became clear that the city had been betrayed and the Persians were entering, they set fire to their own homes and the entire city was obliterated.
(4) In 296, the Praetorian Prefect, Asclepiodotus, commanded an army belonging to the emperor Constantius Chlorus, and led it against the usurper Allectus. Having arrived in Britain to confront Allectus, Asclepiodotus burned his own ships to prevent his men from retreating.
(5) In 363, Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome invaded Persia. After his army crossed the Tigris he had all the pontoons and barges burned so there would be no thought of going back.
(6) In 711, Tariq ibn Ziyad, for whom Gibraltar is named, landed there, burned his ships and embarked on the conquest of Spain.
(7) Some accounts claim that William the Duke of Normandy burnt his ships on arriving in England in 1066.
(8) In 1169, a group of about 250 English freebooters under the bastards Robert Fitz-Stephen, Meiler Fitz-Henry, and Meiler Fitz-David, along with a vassal of king Henry, named Hervey Montmorency, raided Wexford, and having been repulsed they were so ashamed, they burnt their ships and determined to succeed or die trying.
(9) Hernando Cortez supposedly burned his ships in 1519 to prevent anyone returning to Cuba and reporting his mutiny to the Spanish governor there, but most historians would dispute this.
(10) According to a book published in 1689, which purported to be the journal of a pirate named Raveneau de Lussan, he at one point led his men across the isthmus of the Americas through Honduras after first burning their ship to prevent anyone from defecting.
(11) In 1779, during the celebrated battle between John Paul Jones and the English ship of the line, Serapis, rather than flee or surrender Jones desparately kamikazeed his sinking ship into the Serapis and captured it va banque.
(12) In 1789, sailors serving on the HMS Bounty under the notorious Captain Bly mutinied and sailed to Pitcairn Island where they burned the Bounty.
If you are familiar with X44 at all you know we don’t shy away from tough topics. You also know we aren’t overly concerned with any reasons for believing or following something other than what the Bible instructs. In theology there are “good” views and poor views. A good view shows that something lines up according to the textures of hermeneutics within the overall lens of scripture. A poor view means that something is a stretch or doesn’t really hold water when examined by itself or in the context of the rest of scripture. Sometimes we say you have to do a lot of theological gymnastics to make a view like that work, which isn’t a compliment.
In the case of looking at homosexuality there are many “poor” theological views. For instance, I hear a lot of people say things like, “if the Bible were written today in this culture, it would likely take a different stand on homosexuality.” That is a poor view. The Bible is timeless. I also hear that civilization has evolved or advanced and that homosexuality is a more advanced view of “loving everyone” especially in regard to what a finished or recreated heaven and earth looks like where there doesn’t seem to be a place for gender. As this statement has some considerational merit; it still represents a poor theological view because it stands in stark disagreement with other parts of scripture. I will address this view more in a moment. I also hear people say something like, “the Bible hardly addresses the subject.” That may or may not be true, but there are several statements on homosexuality that give us a clear course. Furthermore, theologically you can’t completely discount something because there isn’t a lot of it.
Sometimes you hear me use the term “minor view” within the context of theology. A minor view means most theologians believe something else, but there is a contingency of well thought scholars that believe the Bible teaches one of the less predominant views, doctrines, or ideas. I hold a few of these views. As an example, one of them is a view on hell called conditionalism over the much more commonly held view of Eternal Conscious Torment. However, it is important to point out that most theologians primary reason for holding a certain view is always because they believe either the Bible better defends the view, or that it fits better into the overall narrative of the Biblical message. In other words, a minor view is held because you think the actual scripture best supports the view. There isn’t another valid reason for holding a minor view. In this case the view that homosexuality is sin before the Lord is the predominant or major view of theologians and Christianity, it is difficult to find a “minor view” that agrees with scripture.
According to the overall story and message of the Bible, the Torah, and Jesus, let’s explore what the scripture actually teaches about following the Lord and homosexuality. In other words, we aren’t really addressing opinion, we are addressing what the Bible says.
The Bible doesn’t say nearly as much about the topic of Homosexuality as people want it to. I often say that wasn’t the primary intent of scripture, but it is some of the message for us. It does clearly address the topic. Gen. 19: 1-13; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10 are the primary passages that prohibit homosexuality. But the rest of the Bible also speaks to the subject as Greg Boyd [1] puts it, “the entire biblical narrative presupposes that sex is supposed to take place between a man and a woman in the context of marriage (Gen. 2:23-24). The Biblical definition of “sin” is “missing the mark” (hamartia), and on the basis of this scriptural evidence, I have to regard homosexuality as “missing the mark” of God’s ideal. So yes, I regard homosexuality to be a sin.” I would encourage you to read Greg’s take on this subject as well which X44 would agree with. (See end note.)
Lastly (before I really dive in), I don’t know of any Theologians that I would typically say have good theological perspectives that take a different view on this subject. Even the more “liberal” or forward thinking possibly even “progressive” theologians that interpret the Bible for all that it is worth would largely agree with this article. There are small debates that I find interesting, such as the idea that “if in a recreated heaven and earth situation there is no gender shouldn’t we practice this kind of love here and now?” as I alluded to above. As I love this discussion, the blatant problem with that thought in particular (and many like it), is that the Bible clearly says that here and now that “act” would be sin in the eyes of God. I don’t see things being contrary to his word in Heaven. The other problem is that thought pattern falls off logically and theologically in terms of sexuality that is confined to earthly realms. We don’t know exactly what “love” looks like in the fulness of God’s plan and would be wrong theologically to assert “our plan or idea” as part of God’s. Consideration is one thing, forming a doctrine is another. We simply don’t have the writings (we don’t have the cards, we weren’t given that book, that isn’t the primary intent of those passages, and we don’t have the right to read anything into them) or the understanding to “see” what the recreated heavens will reveal in terms of love between each other. But if I have learned anything in my studies, it is that the thoughts of humanity are usually far from the thoughts of the Lord God Most High (אֵל עֶלְיוֹן). Usually, the way we think God should do things is a far Cry from His divine Will.
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22
Perhaps the most quoted verse in this arena is Leviticus 18:22. American and other prevalent worldly culture would have us believe in the right to “love” whomever you wish. Often if you don’t view “love” in this “open” sense you are considered archaic or bigoted and repressive by those that do. However, when reading this verse in Leviticus it is difficult to argue anything other than that the cultural/Biblical view of the early Biblical authors clearly forbid homosexuality and the practice is described as an abomination. The Hebrew word used for abomination is the word to’evah and is best translated “a thing of horror.” The context is that if you are practicing this act, you become abhorrent to God and righteousness. I think it is important to break this down. To be clear, homosexuality isn’t condemned in this passage or others because it is harmful to the body (although that may be true), or because it is self-absorbed (and therefore contrary to scripture and also true), or because it is violent (which might also have a case in scripture); but in determining the exact forbiddance here textually it is prohibited as Feinstein notes because “is at its core an appeal to the emotions.”[2] At first this seems too simple and watered down. But think about it for a moment, that is often the simple beauty of the scripture. The idea of homosexuality in Leviticus causes an emotional reaction of horror because it is so counter cultural to the Yahweh covenant governing pure undefiled relationships. It is exactly opposite of what God has designed you for. Today homosexuality is no longer abhorrent. It is just “another choice,” there is no emotional disturbance. We aren’t Israel. We are Babylon and in Babylon lots of things no longer make us sick.
If you are interested in my in depth take on this passage, I would have to say I land very closely to my old friend (RIP-SHALOM) from UW Madison where we studied Hebrew together, Michael Heiser. You can follow his discussion here. [3]
To be completely unbiased, if the passages in the OT were the only passages that condemned homosexuality I might be on the fence on the subject. The reason I say this is because parts of the Torah I believe are still “best practice” or God’s “ideals” for us as Christ followers, but not everything in the “law” can or is likely intended to be followed under the new covenant. How do you know or choose? That question has taken me a lifetime to personally analyze and enact in our family. The fact that Jesus fully kept the law, and we are to “follow” Jesus continues to make this a personal challenge to everyone. Most people aren’t going to question that the New Testament confirms what the Old Testament says about Homosexuality. Perhaps the only “angle” contrary would be those that interpret the stance of Paul to be anti-homosexual conveying his personal beliefs but not being indicative of the rest of the New Testament. To most Christians this view would be heretical, but possibly a consideration to those with that “open” of a theology. This leaves you asking the question, “what did Jesus Himself conclude about Homosexuality?” To be clear Jesus maintained Torah law but not Rabbinical law, in other words it seemed Jesus aligned with Levitical law in my opinion. But I will come back to this as well.
1 Corinthians 6:9 arsenokoitai Greek “homosexual”
Arsenokoitai is the Greek word most frequently translated as homosexuality. It is a bit vague, but not as vague as some modern-day articles would have you think. Sometimes it takes on a more word for word translation of “abusers of themselves with mankind” or “them that defile themselves with mankind”. One of the million dollar questions is why do translators choose to translate the way they do? There are a lot of “not so great” translations that are based on the cultural norms or political lean of the 16th or 17th centuries which marks the basis of most of our translations, or perhaps we could discuss a word for word vs contextual thought pattern of interpretation. This is a great discussion that will come into play here, but most of that conversation I will leave for a different article or the long anticipated X44 YouTube series on inerrancy so many of you are waiting for us to do after we complete the seemingly never-ending church series! But at any rate, this Greek word is a case where I think we can dive in and do better in terms of translation, as I said above, we actually have a very clear path linguistically to follow.
Most Greek words can be easily rendered by breaking down the word itself. Greek works like building blocks of smaller parts of words to create a larger word that encompasses all of the thoughts of the smaller parts. This word comes from arsen (a Greek word for “male”) and koite (“to lay down for rest or sleep, but figuratively, the marriage bed or marriage itself”). I hate to point this out, but we get the word “coitus” from this Greek root which leaves no room for interpretation that this is anything other than inferring sexual intercourse. I will also note that within 2nd temple period extra Biblical source we don’t have to search very hard to find the same renderings. When this was written, homosexuality was rampant in Rome. 13 of the 14 Roman Emperors were homosexuals. This verse is clearly saying that those who practice the act of homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God and are deceived as the practice is evil. This culture norm within the earthly empire was completely opposite to the kingdom of Jesus. Furthermore, the implication is that if you choose to follow Jesus you must leave this act behind, it has no place within the sacred undefiled temple of the Lord which is now, under the New Covenant your very body and being. You are a representation or ambassador of this Jesus kingdom and can’t serve two masters. Your commission and very purposeful design is to represent. And in case you are wondering if there is any chance this is just a singular text or idea that could simply be the thought of Paul personally, or mis-represented over the years in translation or scribed error, Romans 1:27-29 reiterates nearly the exact idea using the same and slightly different words which is a common Biblical way of making sure we received the correct message. Whether you put Paul as the author of Romans or not, the authors knew that God condemned homosexual intercourse from the time of Abraham and the New Testament writings are in alignment with those thoughts hundreds/thousands of years later. God didn’t change His stance on this, and He isn’t going to.
NT Wright would assert, [4] “He [Paul] sees the practice of same-sex relations as a sign that the human world in general is out of joint.This out-of-jointness, he says, is the result of God allowing people to follow lust wherever it leads—once they have lost their grip on God’s truth and, like Adam and Eve in the garden, listened to the voice of the creature rather than the voice of God…“
To be clear this isn’t an argument over habit, or genetics; it likely is connected to the fallen world but God isn’t overly concerned with how it came to be, as much as He is concerned about the Exodus of it and deliverance back into the reclaiming of your original undefiled design to be holy and pure before the Lord. We may enjoy and be used to practicing sin in our former ways, but once you make an allegiant decision to follow the Lord you are making a decision to abide by what God says is holy and take steps towards being a completely “remade” and “renewed” person putting away the desires and activities of the world and becoming like Jesus. In this regard Homosexuality should be treated like any other sin (and in some cases a sexual sin against your body specifically) – we are called to completely stop and pray that God remove it from our remaining “human” being as we are transformed into the process of becoming a “spiritual” being preparing for eternity in a new Heaven and Earth. Perhaps everyone still sins each and every day, but hopefully not willfully. A healthy Christian makes a decision based on Jesus in their life to not continue to give in to the sin of the world. It is one thing to occasionally fall into sin, it is another to willfully continue to live and walk in that sin. The Bible says we are to cut such things out of our lives and be agents of helping other like-minded believers to do the same. This is a major tenet of discipleship.
In this sense, homosexual acts should be considered similar to other sinful acts. The only consideration to which the Bible places some sins differently than others is in terms of sexual sins to be against your body which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. By this, scripture seems to imply that sexual sins carry more implications of recovery and/or repercussions than others might. Homosexuality sins may or may not be in this nature. Not every homosexual sin is sexual. When someone first makes a decision to follow Jesus they only “begin” the journey to be delivered. This is the road to sanctification and isn’t completed until the recreated heavens and earth are established fulfilling our design to partner with the Lord. Some on this earth will get closer than others and your path is between you and the Lord and frankly no one else. But we are indeed moved and called by scripture to give up the former passions of our earthly desires and be transformed into the new remade purpose that God has for us. To be frank a mature believer should be living nearly completely redeemed. As we will never live without the effect of sin while we are in this world, God is calling us to live in freedom and redemption separated from sin and indwelled with the Spirit.
Is there any other room for more “open” theological interpretation?
Personally, as I affirm above, I don’t think there is. I could go through all of the scriptures I mention at the beginning of the article (and in a video I would), but I think the Bible is pretty clear in this area. However, I would recommend Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church (ed. Preston Sprinkle). The problem of any other view is that it is going to have to render the clear portions of scripture a different way. This is what I started the topic as saying requires some theological gymnastics that most Christians scriptural interpreters aren’t comfortable with.
In my mind, you are left with three options:
1. Repent and repair (reparative therapy) -Pray that Jesus truly Heals you and gives you freedom from Sin. This is what I truly believe is offered to us. Reparative therapy isn’t always good. It has been unfortunately the source of much trauma and abuse in the church and continues to be a catalyst used often for more harm than good. However, Jesus is the master healer. If all things point to Jesus in terms of healing and reparative therapy, you have the right idea.
2. Accept and refrain (celibacy) -Eventually all things will be made new, but until God does that work in you, you respectfully refrain. I have some room for this view, in a way, isn’t this what we are called to do largely anyway? Abstinence is often the best policy to start the healing process. It seems to be part of the step to attain total healing. This is a large part of what it means to live in humble devotion. However, there are other considerations, celibacy is a contranym in scripture. Is it a blessing or a curse? Thats is up to you and Jesus. It can go either way.
3. Accept and affirm what you want to believe (i.e. the Bible gets it wrong): for those who are genuinely gay, something Paul does not believe in, Paul’s teachings (and the Torah) do not apply. I don’t even consider this a “poor theological view”, it is not even a “theological view” in my opinion. To take this view you are saying you simply do not believe the Bible is timeless or still true today. Most Christians logically and theologically can’t or perhaps shouldn’t allow themselves to get here. I typically call this “building your theology on anything” and it isn’t Biblical. -I don’t care that it’s wrong. I don’t care what God says. I’m going to “do that thing THEOLOGY.” Perhaps as I earlier alluded to, some are ok with throwing out Paul’s theology and simply removing Him from the authority of scripture. I can’t do that personally (or hermeneutically) whether I “like” his demeaner or not. To continue to live in what the Bible describes as “sin” would not appear to most devout followers to be a “Biblical” choice.
Jesus would love the sinner
I believe the “Christianese” 21st century plan of loving the sinner but not the sin hasn’t been lived out very well by the church. The church in general has identified what the Bible says about loving others but hasn’t fulfilled it through love in action. Brian Zahnd would say, ” The church is being challenged to act like Jesus. Held accountable for not sounding like Jesus. And losing a generation who wants to follow Jesus.” The image of this article sort of conveys much that I dislike about our Christian culture. We say we love them and eagerly desire to show them God’s love to restore them to a better view and true understanding of Biblical love, but our actions typically are far from conveying that heart. We need to do better. I can’t stand to be in the midst of most anti-homosexual “Christian” circles. They make me sick to my stomach, their anti-love of Jesus sentiment abhors me in a Levitical way. The un-Godly pronouncement over the LGBTQ community by Christians is often as bad as the homosexual sin itself. Treating others this way is counter to what Jesus taught.
It should go without needing to be said that if you are a faithful follower of Jesus and one that seeks to disciple (and we all should), then part of your calling is to lovingly reveal the truth of the scripture to those that may not see. Be the hands and feet of Jesus and shepherd people to the understanding of the scriptures and guide them to truth in Jesus.
Let me say to those of you who struggle with Homosexuality that I love you and so does Jesus. I don’t despise you, and I certainly do not think you are a terrible person or can’t be reconciled to the Love of God. This is not a difficult statement for me or hard for me to empathize with or imagine; in fact, so much that many around me might actually think I am “ok” with homosexuality or wonder if I think it is sin at all. To be honest when other Christians ridicule me for my “acceptance” of the LGBTQ cultures I count it as gain before the Lord. Jesus would have met them at the well, at the table, and at the mountain and so will I. Trust me, my kids know the Bible says homosexuality is sin, but also know how Jesus interreacted with the sinner. You can’t pick and choose what you like about Jesus, your just called to be a representative or physical manifestation of Him to everyone that you interact with. Too many Christians don’t look much like Jesus, but I pray that I and my family do.
What does Jesus actually say and do and what about Paul?
Theologically Jesus “perfected” or gave clarity of the Father to the World. So, what does Jesus say here? Jesus made no explicit statement about Homosexuality. In one regard we think He should have, but we don’t get to decide what we are given. Jesus never said anything explicit about abortion, same-sex marriage, or child molestation. But it would be an incredible claim to conclude from that fact that Jesus’s teaching is irrelevant to our ethical assessment of those issues. The lens of the Bible and Jesus’ message are coherent and in unison. Jesus kept all of the Torah (this is different than rabbinical, man-made law) and asked that we live by his example.
Jesus did speak explicitly about many things such as sexual immorality and the nature of marriage. He denounced the former (e.g., Matt. 5:28; 15:19) and defined the latter according to Genesis 2:24: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh” (Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7–8). Jesus affirmed the covenant.
Some might say that Paul’s teaching applied only to his culture and has little bearing on ours today. One of the first textures of any hermeneutical approach is to first determine the message to the intended audience and how they would have interpreted that message within their culture. Then you decide how and if you can apply it to your personal situation. The “mistake” too many people commit is to attempt to “throw away” or “write off” anything they don’t like on the basis of culture. Theologically and hermeneutically these conversations walk on this ice. Are you throwing away inerrancy and inspiration? It’s true I would likely define inerrancy and inspiration differently than most evangelical Christians would (that series of films on x44 is coming soon); but make no mistake, proper Biblical interpretation doesn’t disregard major thematic messages that are reiterated throughout scripture. A good Theology is working through a consistent agreement within the lens of the Bible.
Jesus and Paul aren’t in a “cage match” or at odds over ethics. To split them is to split the Torah and the message of God to His people. The OT can’t be severed from the New. If you view Jesus as peace-loving, enemy-forgiving, egalitarian, and inclusive with regard to homosexuals and align Paul as war-loving, death penalty–supporting, patriarchal, and exclusionary with regard to homosexuals (these are terrible Pauline views imo) you have some deep-rooted theological issues that I would propose can’t work together under a proper view of the complete word of God. Your theological lens is a mess. I would encourage you to dive deeper to reconcile your thoughts. Dr. Matt and I have gone to a great deal of Research through the Expedition 44 Youtube Channel to show others a better view. I would caution anyone to throw out the black letters of the Bible and/or even position them as subservient to the red letters. They all point to Jesus.
To those that struggle with Homosexuality.
My big question to a Christian struggling with LGBTQ temptation is, “Are you divinely interested in what God’s word says?” You might not accept how Christians in general act today (I don’t either), but are you willing to place your “trust-faith” in Jesus and what He asks of you? Are you interested in what God desires for you and entering into the covenant commitment that He asks of those who follow Him as Disciples?
We all sin and we are all broken as a result of broken relationship with the Lord and the mucked up world. You have been given the chance to be redeemed, to be delivered. Set your face to say, “My heart and core is broken, I wish I weren’t. I can choose to turn my brokenness into sin and live in redemption and freedom in the power of Jesus.” You can choose to live as the Bible asks you and to be consecrated before the Lord. Find a tribe, a community that will walk with you. Find a mentor, be a mentor, seek accountability, get transparent before the Lord and those in covenant with you. Find a church that has a loving scriptural support-based view for sin and be immersed. You can make the commitment, declare the overcoming power of Jesus over your sin, and declare freedom and victory as you are devoted to move into the calling that God has for you.
Dr. Will Ryan
Special thanks to those that contributed to this article in a thought tank: Dr. Matt Mouzakis of X44, Nick Tenhagen, Dr. Phil Molitor, Pastor Steve Thorngate, and Josh Ruud. Please note that they do not necessarily share the view of the author and represent a very diverse mix of theological backgrounds.
I have been working on a new SEAL for CTS for quite some time and today I decided to unveil it.
Song of Solomon 8:6 says, “Put me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, jealousy is as severe as Sheol; its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the LORD.”
It is likely no secret to you when you read this that Song of Solomon places sexual intensity, desire and contentment under the authority of the “seal.” At the conclusion of this great love poem, the woman instructs the man to “put me like a seal” over your heart and on your arm. The heart signifies obedient resolution and the arm action that is connected as a cord of three strands in covenant devotion with the Lord at the core.
The word translated “seal” is the Hebrew hotham. In the ancient near east culture, it was a cylindrical piece of stone with a mark that left a raised impression showing ownership, allegiance, and authority of and into something or someone. It was a bit of a sign of commissioning or that you were representative of the one that the seal represented. It was an image of bearing.
The Hebrew word hotham is a loanword from Egyptian associated with magic. (Just for the record, I am generally against most ideas of “magic” in our culture, but perhaps that is also because our culture has taken something that was once beautiful before the Lord and turned it into something that is detestable.) At first this may not sit well with you but consider it with me for a moment. Many of us characterize the ever-growing relationship with a spouse before the Lord as simply magic, or at least that may be the goal! There is also an interesting “backward” play in the text mentioned on the man being owned by the woman. In the Davidic period that was not very acceptable to say the least. But this “backward or upside down” thinking would begin to pave the way for Jesus proclaiming victory through complete humility which would seem “backward” or counter cultural to His saving actions as a King or Savior. In this verse the man will place his life in the hands of a woman as a foreshadow later of each of us placing our lives in complete allegiance assuming a lowly calling to the royal priesthood of the new covenant in devotion to an “all in” kingdom.
The woman of the text prayed something like, “Lord, help me to live as the obedient manager, putting his relationship with You ahead of my agendas. Let me bring him to the place where he is used completely by You, and I will glory in my role in making him Yours.” This should also describe our relational thinking and mission as we are the bride of Christ in the new covenant.
The new CTS seal bears an abbreviated Hebrew phrase haʾUrim vəhaTummim (האורים והתומים) or in English, “Urim and Thummin.” Throughout the diaspora and later when the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the original meaning in Hebrew of “Urim and Thummin” was lost. We may not know specifically what the Urim and Thummin looked like or specifically how they were used, but we do know that the priests used them to “discern” the will of the Lord and believed that what transpired was from Him. The elements of the hoshen, the breastplate worn by the High Priest attached to the ephod were connected with cleromancy, which in other cultures is understood as divination by casting lots. However, in the Israelite or Hebrew context it was understood to have been proclaiming that you are completely given to the work of the Lord and as you lay your life down in humble devotion. The Lord would accept your complete sacrifice and answer by using your life, heart, and actions to accomplish innumerably more than you could imagine. Such a work by the rest of the world was not “possible” or seemed like magic. Today these words signify the calling and mission of CTS to cultivate a discipleship culture that is unmistakably through the power and presence of the Lord God almighty and not of our own accord, that we might be completely given to the kingdom of Jesus.
EXPEDITION 44 