Monthly Archives: June 2025

The Bible

Posted by expedition44 on

Let’s start with some fun facts… 1

#1 There is no physical description of Jesus in the Bible.

It’s difficult to believe, but we don’t really know what Jesus looked like, there’s no actual description of Him in the Bible.

#2 David had blood on his hands.

Before David was 18 years old, he killed 200 Philistines as a dowry for marriage to King Saul’s daughter. In the middle of his life, David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen (2 Samuel 10:18) or seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen (as recorded in 1 Chronicles 19:18). David killed every male in Edom (1 Kings 11:15.) Then in 2 Samuel 11, towards the end of his life, David sleeps with Bathsheba, and has her Husband killed. Some attest that David killed under God, or that God was ok with it but 1 Chronicles 22:8 seems to say otherwise, it tells us that God did not to allow David to build the temple: “You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight.” Furthermore, according to 1 Chronicles 21: 1, 5-14 God killed 70,000 men because of David’s continued sins. In one of his final acts as King of Israel, David gives his son and heir Solomon a hit list — “a last will and testament worthy of a dying Mafia capo,” says Bible scholar and translator Robert Alter — and the biblical scene may have been the inspiration for the final scene of The Godfather.

#3 The shortest verse in the Bible Is two words (three in the original Greek).

John 11:35 says that after his friend Lazarus died, “Jesus wept.” In Greek, it’s actually three words, Edakrysen ho Iēsous, but it’s still the shortest.

#4 The complete Christian Bible has been translated into 756 languages.

This is approximately 10% of all existing languages.

#5 The number of books in the Bible varies.

All Christian Bibles contain at least 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament for a total of 66. However, numbers vary between different Christian denominations. The Catholic Bible contains 73 books, while Orthodox Bibles contain between 79-86 books since there is no universally sanctioned canon in the Orthodox churches.

#6 The Bible is the best-selling book in the world.

The Guinness Book of World Records says the Bible is both the best-selling and the most widely disseminated book in the world. (It is also the number one shoplifted item in the world.)

#7 God is never specifically alluded to in the Book of Esther.

In this book, Esther is a Jewish heroine who ultimately saves her people from a murderous plot. However, one interesting fact about the book of Esther is that God is never mentioned at all in the story, causing some, such as Protestant Reformer Martin Luther, to argue that it shouldn’t be included in the Bible at all. 

#8 Genesis contains two different stories of the creation of humans.

Genesis 1 says God created humans who merely appear at his insistence. But in Genesis 2, God forms a man (Hebrew: Adam) out of dust and breathes life into him. Later, he takes a rib from Adam to create Eve. Some say the story is recursive, some say it is a continuation of the first story.

#9 Many common phrases in the modern world originated with the Bible.

“Apple of my eye” — Deuteronomy 2:10
“Wolf in sheep’s clothing” — Matthew 7:15
“By the skin of our teeth” — Job 19:20
“Drop in the bucket” — Isaiah 40:15

Some have attested that there are more than 300 of these.2

#10 It wasn’t until the 13th century CE that chapters and verses were added.

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 niqqud or nikud “dottin), 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. However, there are approximately 875 differences in opinion on the interpretation of the punctuation throughout the Hebrew Bible. 3 The Masoretes devised the vowel notation system for Hebrew that is still widely used, as well as the trope symbols used for cantillation.4 The original writings of the Bible had no divisions between verses (or even letters). Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury, created the modern chapter divisions in 1227 CE.

#11 We have no original writings of any Biblical book.

One shocking fact about the Bible is that the manuscripts we have of every book of the Bible are copies of copies of copies of copies, etc.

#12 Paul probably didn’t say that women should be silent in church.

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is instructing the church at Corinth on how to worship in an orderly manner. Suddenly, though, in verses 34-35, he writes several sentences about how women should not speak in church. Scholars have long recognized that a later scribe probably added this to Paul’s letter. If you take out those sentences, the book makes more sense.

#13 The book of Genesis was written by three different authors.

Most people think Moses write all 5 books of the Torah, but scholars would strongly disagree. Genesis alone was written by at least three authors. As we don’t know specifically who the authors were, we call these authors J, E, and P. The J source called God “Yahweh” (J is the first letter in the German spelling of Yahweh). The E source called God “Elohim” and the P source stands for “priestly” since that author was mostly concerned with ceremonial rules and requirements for priests. The author of Deuteronomy is also then referred to as “D” as he seems to be another author.

#14 The oldest complete Bible dates to the 4th century.

It’s called Codex Sinaiticus and contains the entire Old and New Testaments, plus some books that were later excluded.

#15 The authors of the New Testament read the Greek version of the Old Testament — called the Septuagint —rather than the Hebrew.

This led to some interesting mistranslations. One of the most interesting was made in Isaiah 7:14 which says “Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.” The Greek translation, however, changed the word “almah,” meaning “young woman,” to “virgin.” This would later be used by the author of Matthew as proof of Jesus’ virgin birth.

The Bible is God’s Word, and the Word was flesh, but the Bible isn’t God or Jesus Himself. Does that actually make sense?

Have you allowed the Bible to Replace Jesus? Can the Bible become an Idol?

A good friend of mine has put it like this, “Biblicism assumes every verse carries the same weight, that Leviticus 20 and Luke 15 should be read exactly the same way—regardless of covenant, context, or Christ. That sounds faithful. But it’s not.5

Because when every word carries the same weight, you can make the Bible say anything you want.

And today, that’s exactly what’s happening.
Verses are ripped out of context to extort personal motives
To silence grief.
To justify violence.
To control others.

The Bible was never intended to be a theological text.

The Bible is primarily a narrative love story of covenant faithfulness, one encounter after another telling stories of transparent interactions with the Lord.

The Bible is told in times of ancient cultures and characters that may or may not have application to us today. It was not written to us but for us.6 There isn’t anything systematic about it. We attempt to codify, analyze, and organize and to some degree then lose touch with the central theme, the growing disconnection between humanity and the God that created them with intention of exactly the opposite, growing infinitely together, rather than apart. We want to read the story through our own western eyes, but the genre falls far short of those expectations. The Bible is a book about failures and triumphs, despair and hope and the river of human emotions of living in this broken world. The text speaks to us, not in creeds and doctrines and religious acronyms but in very plain verbiage that appeals to all.

Brian Zahnd, puts it this way,7 I’m an ancient Egyptian. I’m a comfortable Babylonian. I’m a Roman in his villa. That’s my problem. See, I’m trying to read the Bible for all it’s worth, but I’m not a Hebrew slave suffering in Egypt. I’m not a conquered Judean deported to Babylon. I’m not a first century Jew living under Roman occupation. I’m a citizen of a superpower. I was born among the conquerors. I live in the empire. But I want to read the Bible and think it’s talking to me. This is a problem.

The Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and other first century groups didn’t necessarily share the same “canon” (the word didn’t even exist at that time) but they did have sacred writings, writings that facilitated their practice of living according to God’s will.  When you really think about the relationship between our chosen Bible and the religious practice of groups today, it’s pretty much the same thing.  Perhaps we need to keep this in mind when we engage in debate about the meaning of any particular text.8

That said, the Holy Spirit does not provide an unambiguous interpretation of every given text. Every time we read the Bible we have to interpret what we read. Interpreting just means making sense of a text—it is not a special skill reserved for difficult passages. The ways we go about making sense of the Bible will be influenced by our frames of reference and cultural expectations. Sometimes these can interfere with our ability to hear the intended meaning of the biblical authors.

Keeping in mind the origin of the Bible and overall purpose of Scripture can help orient our expectations as we read. When reading a particular text, we should consider the author’s intentions, literary forms and conventions, language, and cultural background of the original audience.9

Vernon K. Robbins in his book, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation says that words themselves work in complicated ways to communicate meanings that we only partially understand” and in “that meanings themselves have their meanings by their relation to other meanings”. Given these presuppositions, any serious reader will benefit by exploring the multiple layers or the many textures of texts.10

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8 NASB

The Bible is not a Western scientific book.  Its categories of reality are not the categories of our scientific perspective.  Its view of life is not the compartmentalized packaging of research.  It does not seek to predict and control. “The categories of the Bible are not principles to be comprehended but events to be continued.  The life of him who joins the covenant of Abraham continues the life of Abraham.  Abraham endures forever.  We are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.”11

Heschel’s insight should cause us to reconsider how we regard the Bible.  In the West we are likely to view the Bible as a sourcebook for spiritual insights or a jumbled systematic theology or a God-inspired Boy Scout handbook of answers to life’s perplexing questions.  What we usually do not think about the Bible is that it is simply a record of God’s encounters with Israel.  We don’t see the Bible as a story, a recollection of the emotional involvement of God and men.  We think of the Bible as a book of spiritual information rather than a history of divine encounters.  Heschel is right.  If we think of the Bible from a Western point of view, we will look for the “21 irrefutable principles” rather than recognizing the emotional reaction of awe.  We will read the Bible as if it were Fodor’s guidebook to life on earth rather than reading it as the expressions of men and women who discovered God’s presence along the way.

When Isaiah says that the “word of our God” stands forever, does he mean that all those theological categories, divine attributes, creedal answers, and holy platitudes are eternal?  Or does he mean that the experience of God found in prophetic revelation is always life transforming?  Is Isaiah writing about Messianic prophecies or is he describing what it means to be overwhelmed by God’s holiness?  If “word” debar is the speaking of God (not the written words in our biblical texts), then the record we have is not the same as hearing God’s word.  The record is second-hand information; the voice is the direct encounter with majesty.  Perhaps the Bible is what’s left over after God reveals Himself.12

FOR FURTHER STUDY:

If this is a new conversation to you I would recommend starting with Simply Christian and then trying The Day the Revolution Began both by NT Wright. The first book will give you a scent of Wright’s Big Story, and the second wades into the details. Wright’s genius in my opinion is challenging the questions that Luther and Calvin tried to answer when reforming the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. He is an evangelical writing to evangelicals. But he thinks that evangelicals should basically start over when interpreting the Bible’s bigger story. While I do not end up subscribing to everything he maintains, listening to him challenge long-held views within the Western Christian tradition is refreshing and will lead us to think for ourselves, especially when trying to rethink our original questions.

  1. https://www.bartehrman.com/facts-about-the-bible/ ↩︎
  2. https://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/sayings.htm ↩︎
  3. Louis Ginzberg, Caspar Levias. “Ben Naphtali”. Jewish Encyclopedia. ↩︎
  4. Sommer, Benjamin D. (1999). “Revelation at Sinai in the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish Theology”. The Chicago Journal of Religion. 79 (3): 422–451. doi:10.1086/490456. ISSN 0022-4189 – via University of Chicago Press. ↩︎
  5. https://pauldazet.substack.com/p/the-bible-isnt-the-fourth-member ↩︎
  6. https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2021/scripture-is-for-us-but-not-to-us ↩︎
  7. https://brianzahnd.com/2014/02/problem-bible/ ↩︎
  8. Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, The Particulars of Rapture: Reflections on Exodus (Schocken Books, New York: 2001), p. 2. ↩︎
  9. https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-should-we-interpret-the-bible ↩︎
  10. Vernon K. Robbins. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical
    Interpretation. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996. x + 148
    pp. $15.00, paper, ISBN 978-1-56338-183-6. ↩︎
  11.  Abraham Heschel, Man’s Quest for God, p. 88 ↩︎
  12. https://skipmoen.com/2023/07/the-bible-at-large-rewind/ ↩︎

TOV RIVER TRIP JUNE 28-JULY 1

Posted by expedition44 on

We are planning a Wisconsin River trip from Saturday to Monday. This is a “plan your own way” trip. Comments will be open here for discussion. We will be traveling from Spring Green to the Muscoda which is approximately 25 miles on the river. Although this sounds significant, it isn’t a lot of paddling, about 8 hours total. We will camp at a sandbar not far from the put out at Muscoda in case some people want to take out Saturday night (with Malachi).

Meet at the Range open Saturday Morning June 28 at 8am to carpool up together.

10:30 am arrive ad put in at Peck’s landing in Spring Green: 13451 State Road 23, Spring Green, WI 53588, United States. From here you can have brunch on the beach, or paddle up the river to tower hill while you wait for vehicles to drop off cars at the takeout. Essentially, the way this works is you unload all your gear and then all the cars drive 30 minutes to the takeout and shuttle back together in one vehicle. That way when we are done with the trip we only have to pickup the shuttle vehicle. But there will be some downtime so paddling up to Tower Hill is a fun little quick excursion.

Once the drop off vehicles are back, we will start our Journey. On Saturday we will paddle 10-15 Miles. Wooded bluffs with beautiful limestone and sandstone outcroppings lie along the south side of this downstream excursion; some even rise right out of the river. The plan is to get to Muscoda by Sunaday Night/Monday Morning. The following maps came from this site.

Muscoda Boat Landing: E Water St, Muscoda, WI 53573-9153

Victoria Riverside Park Landing at Muscoda
River: The landing is on a tiny, rocky peninsula that extends out from the left bank as you approach the Highway 80 Bridge. You will see a covered pavilion
near the access. Riverside Park and the town of Muscoda are behind the landing.

The park is owned and maintained by the town of Muscoda and offers shaded picnic areas and camping. Trailer ramp, trailer turnaround, parking area, restrooms, water.


Muscoda is pronounced ‘muh – skoh – day’, not ‘muh – skoh – dah’.

MONDAY:

Was thinking we could hit Devils Lake State park for some cliff jumping and rock climbing on Monday on the way home! Meet at the north shore then hike the West Bluff Trail south to the Dead Tree Wall Rock Climbing area. 43°25’17.4″N 89°44’18.3″W Here is a pin.

Nice Steep 50 to 60 Ft. wall with good routes to be found just to the north of Reclining Tower area as one walks north along the West Bluff Trail. The top of Dead Tree Wall is very close to to the trail. There is a prominent central crack line called….you guessed it… “Dead Tree Crack”.Easy 3rd class gully just south of the wall. Don’t go directly down the section of the gully that lies closets to the West Bluff Trail but ease down a tad bit further from the trail. You will find it easier. Just follow the slope down along the ever growing wall to the base after negotiating the gully.

If we aren’t there, we are at ROCK 8 for swimming 2/3 of the way from the trailhead south on Tumbled Rocks Trail. Just under a half-mile south of the north shore beach on Devil’s Lake State Park’s Tumbled Rocks trail, you’ll come upon the park’s popular diving rock, “Rock 8”. Rock 8, which looks a bit like the front end of a whale from the water, can provide a diving platform ranging from 4-12 feet above the water depending on the lake level.

Why is it called Rock 8?

At one time a surveyor camp from the University of Wisconsin was located on the south-west corner of Devil’s Lake. At that time a variety of locations around the lake were numbered for training purposes. Rock 8, as you have probably guessed, had a big “8” painted on it.

Michal and the Dance of David

Posted by expedition44 on

Michal (/mɪˈxɑːl/; Hebrew: מִיכַל) was, was the younger daughter of King Saul and the first wife of David (1 Samuel 18:20–27) where it is said in 1 Samuel 18:20 and 18:28 that Michal loved David. The narrative does not indicate whether this is reciprocated. 1 Her story is shrouded in transparency and strange allegiance creating a mystery of interpretation. What can we glean from her part of the story? Why is she significant in the pages of the text?

DAVID’S FAME AND SAUL’S JEALOUSY

David’s early success was marked by his victory over Goliath, the Philistine giant,detailed in 1 Samuel 17, where David declares, “The LORD, who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear, will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine” (1 Samuel 17:37). His triumph brought him immediate fame and favor in the eyes of the people and King Saul.

However, David’s rising popularity soon became a source of intense jealousy for Saul. We read in 1 Samuel 18:7-9 “the women sang out: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.’ And Saul was furious and resented this song. ‘They have ascribed tens of thousands to David,’ he said, ‘but only thousands to me. What more can he have but the kingdom?’ And from that day forward, Saul kept a jealous eye on David.”

David was 15 years old when he fought Goliath and shortly after was wed and found himself fleeing Saul all within three short years.2

THE MARRIAGE

The story begins to go south by the time Saul invited David to marry Michal. The text tells us that Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” (1 Sa 18:20–21a). But when David was offered a bride, he replied, “I am a poor and lightly esteemed man”, meaning that he was unable to provide a bride price, especially one of a king’s daughter. Saul then advised him that no bride price was required except for the foreskins of 100 Philistines, to which David then “answered” by killing 200 Philistines. In the ancient world this would have been a “double portion” sentiment essentially expressing that the dowry was far greater than the price asked and also communicating a message that he was able and willing. It was often viewed in a client benefactor relationship as the returning of a reciprocal gestured gift. But I want you to also consider the implications of the text. This is a 16–17-year-old boy (likely with a forming army) who kills 200 philistines.

Can you deconstruct any traditional (David was a man after God’s own heart) thoughts you might have on David to just take a step back and unbiasedly consider the repercussions of this? David was anointed to bring back Israel to God. Saul represents the world. David is quickly enticed by the praises of the world, the flesh, and the kingship that he will do nearly anything to continue his rise to power. I doubt his interest in the wedding to Michal was much more than a political step. We don’t seem to see any inkling of more than that in the text. But consider what David did, at the request of Saul, the worldly king who at this point is positioned in the text as one being opposite of God, kills 200 philistines and brings back part of their genitals.

There is nothing in the text to hint that God thought this was a good idea, there is no divine sanction given; we are simply reading the narrative of what took place. You are always being mentored by someone and here we see David begin to be mentored by the ways of the world. Some even go as far to say that King Saul was demon possessed at this time.3 You have to ask the question then, is this cold-blooded murder? Is it an act of war and permissible in the ancient world? Why would David do this? The evident answer is it was a way of personally solidifying the throne rather than relying on God’s timing. The reality of the situation was likely that Each foreskin represents a life taken. Not by natural disaster, chaos or an act of God, not even by war, or accident. Each life was taken by David, on the jealous whim of King Saul.

By the time David is only 18 years old, Saul turns on David throwing the Javelin at him causing David to flee and rally some men for protection. Michal chooses the welfare of David over the wishes of her father. When Saul’s messengers search for David in order to kill him, Michal sends them away while pretending he was ill and laid up in bed. She lets David down through a window and hides teraphim in his bed as a ruse. J. Cheryl Exum points out that although she risked her life in helping him, after he leaves the court, he makes no attempt to contact her.4 This might imply a one-sided love, but we would have to deduce that as the text doesn’t clearly say one way or another. It could also be an act to protect her so that she would not have been implicated or even killed. We also don’t know why she helped David or her heart’s intentions; the text doesn’t give us that. I don’t know that at this point in the story we should be deducing much. There don’t seem to be any great biblical takeaways, it is merely character development, but don’t miss that. I used to think that David’s heart was “pure” at the beginning but after really thinking through the early parts of this story and particularly the 200 foreskins and likely trying to assume a place in the kingdom for himself, I am no longer convinced. On the other hand, we all make mistakes, but hopefully that doesn’t entail the murder of 200 people.

DAVID ALIGNS WITH THE PHILISTINES

What is even more strange than this is that within a short period of time from this instance, David sought refuge among the Philistines, specifically with Achish, the king of Gath. In 1 Samuel 27, David and his men settled in Ziklag, a town given to him by Achish. David lived among the Philistines for a year and four months, during which he conducted raids against various groups while maintaining the pretense of loyalty to Achish.

Some have tried to argue that David killed 200 Philistines as some kind of holy sanction in the name of the LORD to drive out and annihilate them. I don’t think this is a faithful view. The text doesn’t make any effort to suggest such a “smile” from God and the over whelming commands of YHWH would not line up with this kind of violence or murder particularly in form of a payment or dowry. You also have to ask the question would God be aligned with the Philistines?

The Philistines played a crucial role in the events leading to Saul’s downfall. In 1 Samuel 28-31, the Philistines gathered their forces to fight against Israel. David, still under the guise of a Philistine ally, was initially expected to join the battle. However, the Philistine commanders, wary of David’s potential betrayal, refused to allow him to fight alongside them (1 Samuel 29:4-7).

The battle culminated in a disastrous defeat for Israel at Mount Gilboa, where Saul and his sons, including Jonathan, were killed. This defeat paved the way for David’s ascension to the throne of Israel. If you are paying attention, you are going to figure out that David aided the Philistines in fighting against Israel so that he could assume the throne of Israel. In other words, he put Himself in alliance with those that God had commanded clearly not to be in alliance with. Again, if you can allow yourself to read unbiasedly, it sure seems like David is making decisions away from the heart of God and violating several of God’s commands rather than being one who aligns with them.

REMARRIAGE

The plot thickens, while David was in hiding Saul gave Michal as a wife to Palti, son of Laish. Again, the Biblical narrative doesn’t tell us much. Was this an act to blot out David from Israel as if he were dead? David will also go on to take on several other wives (which should also allude to some thigs in your plot and character analysis), but when David becomes king of Judah and Ish-bosheth (Michal’s brother, and Saul’s son) is king of Israel, David demands her return to him in return for peace between them. Ish-bosheth complied, despite the public protests of Palti (2 Samuel 3:13–16.) Again, the text doesn’t give us a lot. Is this David wanting his first love back or more of a power play? Robert Alter observes that by stressing that he had paid the requested bride price, David makes a legal argument as a political calculation to reinforce his legitimacy as a member of the royal house. Alter notes the contrast between David’s measured negotiations and Palti’s public grief.5 It appears Michal had a real relationship with the second husband, as he weeps bitterly as she’s taken away (2 Sam. 3:12). We don’t hear from her again until that fateful day when the Ark came into Jerusalem. But this could account for bitterness. Is she a woman in captivity?

This is where things get interesting. I have said it for many years; David is a wild card. Most people think of him as a guy with a heart after God, but as I have made the point subsequentially that isn’t biblically accurate. John Walton has a book coming out on this topic. I am not sure I could trust David, or who knows, maybe he would be my best friend. It’s messy. It is complicated. I have no idea. He loved the Lord but seemed so far away at times. He did great things for the kingdom but was nearly solely responsible for Israel’s demise and set the table for Israel completing turning from the Lord. He had been given everything necessary to do great things for the Lord but seemed to fall hugely short. The rest of the story of David and Michal continues to show this sort of messiness begging the question, what exactly is going on.

ARK HISTORY

When David brought the ark in the first time, he did so in complete ignorance. Here is the danger when every generation does not go back to the word of God and study fresh without consideration of the traditions established by the previous generation. The ark had been carted around the countryside off and on and housed for many years so that a generation arose that had no idea that God had legislated transporting the ark. In 1 Chron. 15:12, David admits his error – notice the words, “we did not seek the Lord according to the rule.” Wow, that is a Geraldo episode!

IT IS COMPLICATED

After Michal was returned to David, she criticized him for dancing in an undignified manner, as he brought the Ark of the Covenant to the newly captured Jerusalem in a religious procession (2 Samuel 6:14–22). But if you dive into the context of 2 Samuel 6 this is very complicated. We need some prior context. 2 Samuel 6:3-8 and 1 Chronicles 13:7-11 tell us that when the Ark of the Covenant was being brought back from the land of the Philistines Uzzah drove the cart on which the ark was placed when David sought to bring it up to Jerusalem. When the oxen stumbled, making the ark tilt, Uzzah steadied the ark with his hand, in direct violation of the divine law (Numbers 4:15), and he was immediately killed by the Lord for his error. This seems harsh, but that’s a different article. David, displeased because Yahweh had killed Uzzah,6 called the place where this occurred “Perez-uzzah”, which means “to burst out against Uzzah” according to 2 Samuel 6:8 and 1 Chronicles 13:11. That is quite a statement against the Lord. Consider that for a moment and I will remind you that it was a public profession. Can you imagine a “heart after God’s heart” making that kind of a statement?

David was afraid to bring the ark any further (after making a statement about God like that I would be too) and placed it in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for what ended up being only three months. The Lord then blessed Obed-edom and David went and brought up the ark of God into the city of David. Was David just in it for the blessings? At this point you should be wondering what exactly is happening between David and God. God kills Uzzah, David is mad, David drops off the Ark, God blesses them, David then wants it back and goes and gets it; then does one of his famous naked dances in the street and his wife gets upset.

“DANCING” WITH GOD

There is a word play in Hebrew that might describe David dancing like a mad man and the implication would be that he was mad at God. David danced before the Lord. The Hebrew word used for before is lipeni. This is often used as a preposition, but it can also be used as an adjective. As a preposition, it would simply mean that David danced before God. But as an adjective, it would mean that David danced in God’s presence.  Actually, it would be more correct to say that David danced with God. But In Hebrew this is a contranym, meaning it can be a dance or a tussle. I say this because the Hebrew word for dance that is used here, it is karar.  The common word for dance in Hebrew is mawkhole, but that is not used here.  In fact, karar is used only two times in the Hebrew Bible, both in this passage.  In extra-Biblical sources karar does not mean to dance at all, it means to spin around like a top and pictured as children fighting in ancient times. karar in its Semitic root means one who is possessed. In verse 20, we learn his wife Michal was upset with David because he danced naked.  The word naked or uncovered however is the word nigelah in Hebrew, in English we would say to become “unhinged.” Are you following me? The Hebrew words are specific in the text and are purposeful. The implication is he was acting like a fighting child. This could be good or bad. Was he actually “dancing” beautifully with the Lord? If so, why the strange use of Hebrew words and the play on them? The Hebrew verbiage seems to imply a negative childish act of fighting with God or being mad in the way that he danced.

DAVID’S DRESS OR NACKEDNESS

Michal accuses him of going around “half-naked.” The Hebrew word is the passive form of גילה gi-lay, which is נגלה nig-la, and means to be revealed. Her meaning in 2 Sam. 6:20 seems to be “to expose oneself.” Was it a naked dance? But we need to understand grammatical voices in the text as a texture of interpretation. This is an accurate account of what Michal said, but not necessarily an accurate account of what David actually did. Particularly because the text itself says that he was clothed.

Michal may have been just in criticizing David. Her words are accurate. David was not behaving in a kingly fashion, and she accused him of taking a sexual overtone in the way he showed himself. You might read into the text an accusation of pride here. But in a way she was correct, this was not a “kingly” gesture, and it may not have been portrayed as a “Godly” gesture to some. In light of what we have discovered, interpreting this as any kind of a “God honoring” dance seems far-fetched, but that is what David claims it was.

THE EPHOD

The ephod David wore was a garment usually reserved for priests and those ministering before the Lord.7 As David led the procession of the ark into the city, he laid aside the royal garments and worshiped the Lord, in ecstatic joy. This is complicated. David wasn’t a priest, although all of Israel was supposed to have been priests. Is this a slap in the face or a returning to the divine plan? In some ways Michal and others might have even wondered if God would strike him down for going from wearing a priest’s ephod to being nearly naked, especially knowing what he did in terms of naming the place of Uzzah’s death. This is reminiscent of a controversial super bowl half time show of modern America. Israel knew how to party, and this could have been construed many different ways.

The text tells us that “David danced before the Lord with all his might” (2 Sam. 6:14). But this could be interpreted several different ways. It doesn’t say that is what the Lord thought or received it as. It is more like a narrator at a parade, or a restating of what David said. Michal condemned David for dressing or undressing in such a common fashion and lowering himself to dance and rejoice with the common people as the ark was being brought into Jerusalem. Was she right? Was she simply embarrassed or could she have been spiritually concerned? Is there any way this could have been an act of humility on David’s part?

FORESHADOWS

Some have made the point that perhaps he was attempting to be a nobody in his nakedness. Was he acting in pride or humility? Sometimes that is a fine line. Was Michal in alignment with God or worried about her own reputation? Whatever your thoughts, there is an element of the dance that foreshadows Jesus. David was humble to dance unlike the perceived character of the world’s expectations for a king. Jesus also in humility, did not meet the world’s expectations for a king. Perhaps in the same mindset, David knew that “poor in spirit” was the way he needed to approach God. God is the one he needed to honor, not himself. It is also worth considering that the priests were supposed to be the image of humility before the Lord and David in stripping down to nearly nothing was showing his complete transparent humility before Israel and the Lord. This could also be a foreshadow of Christ’s ultimate act of humility wearing nearly the same thing to the cross.

When later questioned by Michal David’s response is interesting, “It was before the Lord … and I will celebrate before the Lord. I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in your eyes. But by the female servants of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor” (2 Sam. 6:21-22). Was his dance an act of pride, humility, or madness? He seems to get quite offensive with Michal, especially if he then withholds offspring from her. I will remind you that such dancing or leaping, seems to be a posture of the heart affirmed by Jesus (Luke 6:22, 23). I bring this up because as we question, we should be reminded that Jesus came to clarify and set several records straight. However, the context of Luke 6 doesn’t seem to be pointing towards David either, so I am not sure that applying it is a faithful hermeneutic.

MICHAL AND THE WINDOW

Saul had little inkling for anything Godly. Maybe Michal didn’t either. But perhaps she has lost any passion to truly seek to know God. The procession to bring the sacred box, called the ark, to Jerusalem was a very joyful event and much like the procession for a bride on her wedding day. On a groom’s wedding day, it was accustomed for a man to dance in front of the bride. He may be an upstanding man; but at the wedding, he was happy for people to laugh with him. On that day, he desired no honor for himself, he desired only that the bride should receive honor. This also might give us some implications to the foreshadowing of Christ as the Bride of the church which was intended to have been Israel.8

DAVID REBUKES MICHAL

I want to ask a challenging question for your deep consideration. Does the Bible actually tell us that the Lord was pleased by David’s dance? In the next chapter Nathan starts by telling David that the Lord is “with Him”, but then Nathan gets a word from the Lord that seems contrary and the Lord doesn’t sound pleased, in fact David is downright reprimanded by the WORD OF THE LORD. But David’s responsive prayer seems very humble in reply. OHHHHHH This back and forth….

David rebuked Michal in the Bible for criticizing his exuberant dancing before the Lord, perhaps emphasizing his devotion to God over royal propriety, or was it possibly a holy disgust? Could Michal actually be the voice (picture) of one that is holy, and the lack of children shows the tribulation of Israel before God? Either way, this incident further strained their relationship, and the Bible notes that Michal remained childless until her death. 9 While some interpret this as a divine punishment for her judgment of David’s worship, I don’t think that is the case or the nature of God. It is more likely that David, in his anger, withheld himself from her sexually, especially considering his other options. King David had several wives, including Michal, Abigail of Carmel, Ahinoam of Jezreel, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, as well as concubines. The estrangement between Michal and David, rooted in their differing perspectives on loyalty to God and the monarchy, ultimately led to their childlessness and the end of Saul’s lineage.

Let’s consider for a moment that the barrenness was a message from God. If your theology finds yourself believing David was pure in his actions and Michal was not in alignment with God or David but rather represents the world in this story, then her barrenness might also be significant as understanding foreshadowing to Christ. If the world is against Christ, then perhaps they are made barren, which means to no longer produce life… Choose Jesus or choose death. That might be an interesting implication of the text to those unbelieving of Jesus as the Messiah, which ironically was near the same cultural audience several hundred years later. Would barrenness be seen as then a punishment from God? That might be theologically problematic if you believe God is only capable of what is good. It is also interesting that Michal is not described as being beautiful (when other brides sometimes are), though Rabbinic tradition holds that she was of “entrancing beauty.”10

It is also worth noting that from this time on the Levites facilitated the worship of the nation of Israel from the days of King David to the days of Nehemiah in the temple with musical instruments and singing but not dancing according to Numbers 1:48-54, 8:15; 1 Chronicles 23:1-6; Nehemiah 10:39, 11:22. Does this carry any implications?

CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS:

First of all, I don’t want to shape your conclusion but provide a basis of better interpretation. I am not spoon-feeding babies here.

This story is ugly in so many ways. But it didn’t have to be. This is why I am so conflicted with David and his character. What if, instead of rebuking her, he loved her? What if he sought to bring healing to her bitter heart? It is the kindness of the Lord that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). While I love David’s zeal, I see a little bit of pride and childishness in his response to his wife.11 But then again, what if we are really missing the big picture? What if God was smiling on David because his heart had changed in the dance off or wrestling match. Could the composure of David’s prayer in the next chapter finally show him bringing a heart of repentance before the Lord?

Michal remained barren until the end of her life. But I think David could have brought healing to her wounded heart. Traditionally we hear things like David had a heart after God and danced before the Lord and God was pleased, but the text doesn’t actually say or even imply anything close to that upon more careful reading.

Lastly, we are told not to judge, but we are supposed to study the word, test the spirit, and act to bear fruit. What can we learn transparently from this text? And herein is the hope for us: If God can extend love and grace to a man like David – if God can establish the kingdom of Jesus Christ through the merciless murder of 200 Philistine men and boys – then the depth of His grace is boundless. And the same grace that fell to David is available to us all, through the Son of David, the Lord Jesus Christ. Praise be to God.

  1. In 1 Samuel 18:26, David is “pleased … to become the king’s son-in-law” but we are not told whether he was pleased to have married Michal. See Cohen, M., “The Transparency of Saul”, European Judaism, volume 39, no. 1, 2006, for a comparison of the transparent presentation of Saul and the opaqueness of David’s character in 1 Samuel. ↩︎
  2. https://thebiblehistoryguy.com/blog/f/how-old-was-david-when-he-fought-goliath ↩︎
  3. https://degreesofglory.wordpress.com/2018/11/15/why-200-philistine-foreskins-matter/ ↩︎
  4.  “Michal: Bible”. Jewish Women’s Archive. ↩︎
  5. Alter, Robert (1981). “Characterization and the Art of Reticence”. The Art of Biblical Narrative. London: George Allen & Unwin. ISBN 9780567453280. ↩︎
  6. www.Bibler.org – Dictionary – Uzzah”. 2012-06-06. ↩︎
  7. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. Vol. 4, Book 2. pp. 100–101. ↩︎
  8. Osiek, Carolyn. “The Bride of Christ: a problematic wedding – Ephesians 5:22-33.” Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2002. Web: 20 Oct 2010.  ↩︎
  9. https://santhisworld.com/33-meritorious-michal-in-the-bible/ ↩︎
  10. Ginzberg, Louis. “The Family of David”. The Legends of the Jews – via philologos.org. ↩︎
  11. https://www.roncantor.com/post/lessons-from-king-david-s-wife-michal-not-what-you-are-expecting ↩︎

DOES SIN SEPERATE US | FROM GOD?

Posted by expedition44 on

When I was in High school attending a rather large evangelical free church, we had some missionaries come in to train us on street evangelism. The idea was to memorize a step plan for salvation that we could easily regurgitate on the streets. The core of it was based on convincing someone that according to Adams sin we had been separated from God and that only by professing with our mouth and praying the sinner’s prayer could we escape eternal torment and damnation. As there is arguably some truth to that statement, the presentation not only created some terrible theological implications of the gospel message (both to those presenting and those being presented to) but also wasn’t necessarily the best Biblical framework. Of course, as “good” kids we all just went along with it, at least initially. As you can imagine this led to some really awkward conversations in the street and left several students wondering if this is what Christianity is all about whether they really wanted to be part of it. The following year a different but similar group came essentially “training” us to try to do the same thing evangelizing our hometown. But then something happened, this time (likely based on their previous poor experience) several of the students started to transparently challenge the process. I remember it almost as if it was the enslaved rebels of Star Wars questioning the empirical ideals. Questions like, “where does it actually say this in the Bible?” and “Do you really think this is the action that the text had in mind when it was written?” Another student said, “I don’t think I want anything to do with a plan like this, I didn’t come to Jesus to force my friends into submission.” I could go on and on. The training group couldn’t really answer them with any kind of logical explanations, and I was quite disheartened by the whole thing. The night resulted in half the youth group leaving early bailing on street evangelism to go out for ice cream; while the other half (some likely afraid of their parent’s repercussions if they left) continued with the group to evangelize. I am sure there was a small percentage of the “good” kids that convinced themselves this was what good Christian kids should do. I was also skeptical of Billy Graham “crusades” as a kid. And before I continue, I want to say that even though I still don’t entirely agree with these crusades and this kind of step plan evangelistic plans I do believe God uses it in powerful ways. I know many that came to faith this way and then over the course of time found a better theology. But my heart desires to say, let’s start with a better theology!

This youth group interaction was a monumental occurrence in my life that made me start questioning why Christians do what they do and whether the Bible actually said things like the church traditionally claimed. Instead of driving me away from Christianity, as some thought questioning the faith would do, it drove me towards a lifelong beautiful “expedition” towards understanding the incredible word of God and His nature. I don’t know of anyone who has had such joy in the journey. This is my love language, and I pray that it becomes yours.

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS WITH FRAMING SEPERATION FROM GOD THEOLOGY

The central question for your consideration is does the Bible actually say and teach what we have so often regurgitated that “sin has separated us from God?” I will start by saying any time you here a doctrine and you can’t find one verse that clearly states what the doctrine is attempting to “make the gospel say,” the best advice might be to run. If the intent of God was to give us some crafty 4 step plan of salvation wouldn’t that be clearly laid out somewhere in the text? Yet in the “ROMANS ROAD” plan of salvation we have to jump all over Romans back and forth to try to understand the so called laid out plan. Similarly, if a doctrine states something simply in one sentence such as “sin separates us from God” shouldn’t the Bible also state it similarly if it is true? That would make sense. Yet something as engrained in our head such as the statement, “sin separates us from God” doesn’t ever seem to be stated that way anywhere in the text. We deduce it. That doesn’t make it wrong or untrue, it just raises some hermeneutic red flags that should cause you the need or desire to examine it.

What verses then tell us that we are separated from God by Sin?1 Here are the best ones coming straight from those that hold this type of framework:

Are there others? Well, if you think these are a stretch, the others that people claim support separation you’re going to have an even harder time with. These are the closest verses that the Bible has that state we are separated from God by our sin. If you google the question the first link will be “100 verses by open Bible Info”. I will say that almost none of them actually state we are separated from God2, but such a simple search certainly shows that someone thinks or has been traditionally conditioned to tell us that.3

The only verse above that actually comes close to simply stating that sin has separated us from God is Isaiah 59:2. At first reading I can see this, however when you start applying textures of interpretation you see the verse differently. Basic laws of any hermeneutic design say, don’t ever make a doctrine off of one verse. In other words, if there is only one verse that seems to say something that can’t be found elsewhere in the pages of the Bible it likely doesn’t say what you mean what you think. If it did there would be supporting verses. SO then theologically you should be asking the question, if this verse seems to say this, but there isn’t another verse that says it, could there be a different meaning for this text? This kind of thinking leads to a better or more faithful interpretation and overall agreement in your theological lens. John Walton interprets Isaiah 59 as highlighting the necessity of a savior due to humanity’s iniquities and moral failures, yep, we need that!4 The Hebrew word used here that is interpreted as the English word “separated” is  בָּדל (badal.) It is the same word used in Genesis one in the creation narrative used to describe the separation of the light, and water, day and night. Notice in these cases it isn’t a chasm that separates those things, and it is part of God’s order. In fact, the truth is that it is opposite to that way of thinking, day touches night beautifully. It is the most beautiful part of the day that we call sunrise and sunset. Where the land meets water is a beach! We all LOVE the beach. We want to dwell in beaches. We vacation on beaches. Do you see my point? To frame this word as division or a chasm that can’t be overcome isn’t Biblical. Sometimes beauty comes when the peace meets the chaos and that is often where God dwells in scripture. The Biblical picture is actually a “slice of heaven”, the most beautiful thing the world has seen. CS Lewis spent a great deal of time dwelling on this concept.5 Do you see what I am saying? Badal also is a form of setting something apart. You know the other Hebrew word that is used to say that? Kadosh – Holy. The context of Isaiah 59 is actually a word play in the form of a contranym. So yes, in one sense God is holy and sin is the opposite of Holiness, but God isn’t separated from us by that, He actually dwells close to it. The other problem with framing God so far away is that it is giving sin way too much power over you. I am not willing to give sin that kind of leverage or title in my life. God finds people in some of the darkest places. When you run away you think you are far from Him, but the Biblical truth is that God is right there for you. If you truly believe in the omnipresent of God than you have to take this theological perspective. To say there is a chasm between a person sinning and God doesn’t agree with the doctrine of omnipresence.

Furthermore, Isaiah 56 is a prophetic indictment to a people immersed in injustice, oppression, and violence. The “separation” here isn’t God walking away. It’s people who have closed their ears to God’s voice. It’s spiritual disconnection, not divine abandonment. There’s a difference between feeling distant from God and God actually being distant. God never leaves.6

Secondly, once we give our life to Jesus, sin doesn’t simply disappear. According to most plans of salvation logically that is what would make sense. If we are separated by God and we say the magic words than sin is no longer in our lives (the chasm would logically be bridged never to be empty again) but if sin truly separates, then it creates a theology that logically would mean that we would continually be in need of repetitive salvation prayers to bridge this gap over and over. We know that isn’t the case. It creates a poor theological framework. What is true is that we can make a heart and mind choice to live for Him and even though we are still in part of the earthly physical world we are free from the endearing result of sin which is death both in the physical life and eternally. That is grace. To actually believe in this great chasm, minimizes or does away with a Biblical concept of covenant grace. So, to frame sin as a separation from God logically and ontologically doesn’t make sense or follow the premise of the biblical story of God’s redemption of us. It misses the mark.

Furthermore, saying that sin has separated us from God frames the character of God in a way that doesn’t agree with the Bible. It leads us to thinks that from birth we naturally were being judged by the sin of those before us. Yet the Bible is clear that we are only responsible before the Lord for our own actions and not the actions of others. Yes, we are affected by others (perhaps even for generations) but that is slightly different. Affected and responsibility or having to earn something as a result of someone else’s past are different issues. This gets more into the original sin conversation than it does sin separation; but the two are certainly connected. If you haven’t watched or listened to the x44 series on original sin you should do that. Saying that we are always separated from God by sin assumes that when we “sin” God must turn his face or step away from us. That is not true. The overarching message of the Bible is that God does not leave us or forsake us. I wrote an article on this. Do you believe the nature of God gets angry and wrathful when you sin. Do you think God wants to smite you because you sin? That sounds monstrous doesn’t it, yet many peoples theology believes that. Yet God’s love for us couldn’t be more opposite of thinking that way. When we sin, God more than anything, grieves for us and wants to draw us closer to Him into His hand of providence. When we continue to sin God will eventually open his hand of protection and allow us to reap what we have sown. This is actually a more Biblical definition of wrath. We get what we had coming, God no longer protects. (Israel in exile is the archetypical picture of this, but God has always desired and welcomed them back with open arms, thus the prodigal son story and many more. There is no separation or barrier from God’s perspective.) When we think that God is separated from us by sin, we begin to believe that God loves us when we do good and leaves us when we don’t. Or perhaps we think that when we are in devotion to Him, He blesses us and when we are separated by sin He is done with us and can no longer use us for the kingdom. Those in the book of Job asked this question as a retribution principle and God was clear to answer at the end of the story that that is not His character. We have a series on that too. I am glad that isn’t the case. No one would have ever been used by God. Does God just leave us the second we screw up?

DOES SEPARATION OF GOD CHANGE AT THE CROSS?

This is a great question. If you are following along and thinking through the texts, you might realize that in the Old Covenant there seem to be examples of separation from God even though the text never really says it so simply. (As I previously made the point, it could be deduced from the text.) Romans 8 seems to support a notion that in the Old Covenant before the cross we were separated from God. That could be why the cloud came and went from Israel’s trail. It could also show the veil between the holy of holies and the need for a priest. But then when Christ comes as our once and for all great high priest and the veil is torn at the cross, we become the temple of the holy spirit to which the separation is broken. In this sense there MIGHT have been a separation between God and the people in the Old Testament but Jesus (not necessarily the cross itself) removed any sense of being separated. The only problem with holding a view that there was separation in the Old Testament is that the text never actually says it. If the text really intended us to take away that notion wouldn’t one of the 39 books clearly state that? Yet they don’t, it has to be deduced which then makes it a theology of humankind. That should always be problematic to your theology and possibly a dangerous place to dwell. Another great question that then follows suite would be, “Is there a separation for the unbeliever?” I don’t think so. If you take the view that in the OT there was a separation between God and humanity it would be with everyone, not just unbelievers. The cloud and the veil support that theology. If that foreshadows the NT then it would take on the same ideology. Neither believer nor unbeliever are separated then. They are all close to God, God is never far off. This may sound different than what you have always been told but there isn’t anything that would disagree with it; in fact, it takes on a far better lens of agreement within all the texts. I can’t think of one verse that would actually make this a difficult view to hold.

PERHAPS IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A SEPARATION BY SIN

Even though the Bible doesn’t seem to have the framework or state specifically that we are separated from God by sin wouldn’t that make sense. We have certainly always been told that -right? But since the Bible doesn’t say it, we would be left to deduce it. Is that faithful hermeneutics? Well, it can be, if you believe in systematic theology, you are already doing that sort of thing regularly. But Biblical theology questions those practices. In one sense it seems to follow logic that in a relationship if one side falls out of love or becomes distanced you might say they feel are even separated. We say that in broken marriages that grow apart all the time without micro analyzing it. But that doesn’t work biblically with God as one side of the relationship. We are told and shown this multiple times in the Bible. Jesus is the bride of Christ and even though the groom (sometimes viewed as Israel in the OT) was unfaithful, the bride remains completely faithful and therefore is not separated. The separation came from Israel creating a reason to be distanced but God Himself still never leaves or forsakes them in covenant love. Some would say God divorces Israel but that leaves some deep theological problems that need to be sorted if you go that way. The more accurate Biblical mosaic and unending motif of redemption is that despite the unfaithfulness of Israel God is near with open arms. To this design, even though someone distances themselves from God, (and in our human broken relationships) the same is not true of the character of God. God never distances himself from the lost, the divergent saved, the broken, the lost, or the unfaithful… God is always near (which is what the doctrine of omnipresence means, which is also a theology of humanity as long as we are making the statement.) It is important to have consistent theology. I have said many times that the reformed perspective of believing God is omnipresent and also believing that we can be separated from God doesn’t follow a logical pattern. The two views are at odds; they can’t both hold true. If you feel or sense that God is far away or you have severed your relationship, that is what you feel, but the reality and major thematic covenantal truth is that God hasn’t left you. This is true as a believer or unbeliever. God is always near; there is not a chasm between you and God.

UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLICAL TRUTH AND THE BETTER THEOLOGY

The Bible never once states that we are separated from God by sin, but it states over and over that nothing can separate us from God. And Jesus solidifies this regularly if there were any doubt.

Romans 8:38-39: “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Something tells me you have sang loud “NOTHING CAN SEPRATE US” in the Your Love Never Fails song by Chris Quilala of Jesus Culture. Remember that? We sing it so confidently but then believe sin has formed a chasm? How does that work? You can’t sing a song like this and still theologically think that way.

Some say God can’t be in the presence of Evil. That isn’t true either. God clearly sees evil. He is involved, engaged, and working redemption in real time and space. The idea that God literally can’t be near sin is a misreading of the text, and a dangerous concept or doctrine.7

Jesus makes all things clear

Jesus shows us that God wasn’t separated from the sinful, that His heart was moved towards a deeper connection with those in sin than perhaps anyone else. Think about the relationship that Christ had with those in sin. How can you be separated and be in deep relationship at the same time? You can’t. Those two things are opposites. Yet Jesus had deep relationships and was NOT separated by sin to those dwelling in it. He drew a line on the ground for the woman in adultery turning back those who took offense, He touched and healed the unclean before they claimed any relationship with the father. He loved them before they had any semblance of knowing Him. He routinely shared a table with sinners and invited them to be in His sacred space. In other words, he didn’t build chasms between Himself and the sinful, rather He walked hand and hand with them shepherding them to Him. He entreated those that were immersed even drowning in their sin. That doesn’t sound like a cliff of separation to me. It sounds the opposite. It sounds and looks like relational love.

“Come to me, all who are weary and burdened…” (Matt. 11:28)

And when Jesus went to the cross, He entered fully into the consequence and depth of human sin, not to separate us from God, but to reveal how far God was willing to go to stay with us.8

CONSIDERING SIN

This article isn’t meant to diminish sin. Sin is the opposite of God, but as I have made the case isn’t impenetrable. Sin is infectious, it hurts, it cuts, it wounds, it severs, it destroys and requires spiritual healing. Make no doubt there. Continually giving into sin is the road to death both physically in this life now and also to come in an eschatological sense (already not yet). Sin masks our identity in Christ and creates worldly thoughts of shame, pride, fear, insecurity, hurt, doubt, trauma, and so much more. Sin hurts not only you but those in relationship and covenant with you. Sin can severe your ability to walk in the spiritual prosperity that God has for you. Sin inhibits the freedom that God gives. Sin is the opposite of the peace that God manifests in us. Jesus came to take away the sin of the world. I am in no way diminishing the effects of sin on this world.

Dr. Matt and I are writing a book on this, so I am going to keep the more theological section here brief, but I also feel like it needs to be shown in this article. The effect of Jesus’s death concerning humanity’s sins in 1 John (specifically but also every other reference) is to cleanse (kathatizo), or to remove (airo) sin, not to appease or satisfy. Thus, Jesus’ death as an “atoning sacrifice” functions as an expiation of sin and not the propitiation of God. This is exactly what is happening in the Day of Atonement, and it is the image John is using in the entirety of 1 John. There is not one image of God needing to be appeased in 1 John to forgive sin or cleanse.

What does “for our sins” mean? “For” can have many meanings. But Greek is specific whereas English is not. There are 4 words with 4 distinct meanings (with some minor overlap) in Greek for “for”:

  • Anti: this for that (substitution or exchange)
    • Eye for (anti) an eye, tooth for (anti) a tooth (Matt 5:38)
    • “Do not repay anyone evil [in exchange] for (anti) evil” (Rom 12:17)
  • Dia: Because of or on account of; from
    • one agent acting against another agent or on behalf of another 
  • Peri: Concerning, about (sometimes overlaps with Dia)
    • Conveying general information about something
  • Huper:  in some entity’s interest: for, on behalf of, for the sake of,
    • the moving cause or reason: because of, for the sake of, for.

In 1 John 4:10 and 2:2 we see peri being used for “for”, besides Mark 10:45 (anti “this for that”- substitution or exchange)9 all of the other New Testament uses of “died for us”, “died for me”, and “died for our sins” and its cognates are huper -about a benefit, or as the Creed above said, “on our behalf”.10 I’m not saying that Jesus did not do something in our place (although I would be careful with using the term substitution doctrinally) but he did this on our behalf- for a benefit or to rescue us (but not from the Father). 

Those 3 verses (Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) are all of the references to “propitiation” in the NT. Hebrews 2:17 also uses a variation of this word and in context is about what the high priest does with the purification offering on the Day of Atonement. We’ve seen that all these mean expiations or show Jesus as the “mercy seat” when interpreted in the proper context of the Day of Atonement. 

We do not see that the scapegoat or the purification offering had to be killed to propitiate God’s wrath. To interpret these in this way is going beyond the text and meaning of the Day of Atonement shadow. In other word’s framing the text that was is reading into it, it isn’t a faithful hermeneutic. The primary question about the Day of Atonement goats is whether God is being acted upon (changed?) or is sin being acted upon. As we saw with expiation, sin is the force being acted upon. But with propitiation, God is being acted upon. Yet, the noun’s use in the New Testament is about Jesus being the place where we connect with God because of his High Priestly and expiating function. This makes sense of Paul’s most popular phrase for salvation: “In Him”- Jesus is where (the place- Mercy Seat) we meet with God. 

There are plenty of other corresponding verses that all agree with this methodology such as Leviticus 16; Romans 3:21-26, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10; Heb 13:11-12; Matt 27:28-31; Heb 9:14-28; Heb 10:8-17; 1 John 3:5-8; John 1:29; Col 2:14; 2 Cor 5:21.

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOU?

If you believe sin separates you from God, then every time you fall short or miss the mark, you’ll think or believe that God’s love has left or betrayed you or has turned His face from you. That is such a poor image of God’s character and against everything the Bible says about His great redemption story. It is counter to almost every thematic motif in the Bible. Have you been harboring the lie that keeps you from experiencing what God wants most for you? Are you wallowing in your mess because you haven’t claimed redemption? God is always with you.

God’s grace for your sin is stronger than your worst nightmare or anything the world can dish out.

CONCLUSION11

Jesus didn’t come to make God love us.
He came to show us that God already did.

Sin is real. It has consequences. It can numb us, isolate us, distort our vision.
But it can’t separate us from God.

The cross is not a bridge to a distant God.
It’s the place where God meets us in the depths of our brokenness
And says, “I’m not going anywhere.”

Jesus is not your lifeline back to God.
Jesus is God – reaching, rescuing, embracing.
Always has been.
Always will be.

  1. https://www.gotquestions.org/plan-of-salvation.html ↩︎
  2. https://bible.org/article/gods-plan-salvation ↩︎
  3. https://www.openbible.info/topics/sin_separates_us_from_god ↩︎
  4. https://bible.ca/ef/expository-isaiah-59.htm ↩︎
  5. Carpenter, Humphrey (2006) [1978]. The Inklings of Oxford: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Their Friends. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-774869-3. ↩︎
  6. https://pauldazet.substack.com/p/sin-doesnt-separate-us-from-god ↩︎
  7. IBID ↩︎
  8. IBID ↩︎
  9. In the image of the Exodus there was actually no substitution or exchange but that Jesus’ life was costly and his death and blood saves us from Death. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSqtE13v5k for a full word study on “For us” and all its uses in the NT. ↩︎
  10. Some of the most prominent sacrificial “For Us” verses in the NT that use huper (not anti): Rom 5:6-8; 1 Cor 15:3-5; 2 Cor 15:14-15; Gal 1:3-4; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:1-2; 1 Thes 5: 9-10; Titus 2:11-14; Heb 2:9-11. ↩︎
  11. IBID ↩︎