Marriage is a covenant relationship instituted by the Lord. The term covenant in Hebrew (berith) has a literal meaning of ‘a cut where blood flows’ and is used to accurately portray the strongest of all possible relationship structures we could divinely engage in. This word and concept is one of the largest hermeneutics in scripture and is a necessary component for true revelation of the scriptures, the nature of God, and our new life in Christ Jesus and the basis for all relationships.
Written by Dr. Steve Cassell and edited by Dr. Will Ryan
When I was younger I was entangled with the ‘thug’ or ‘gang’ life because, well, I was stupid. I can almost hear the diverse reactions to that revelation among the readership… from guffaws, to eye-rolls, and possibly a few raised eyebrows of shock. Nevertheless, it is an accurate historical reality. The main compelling factor propelling me in that direction was the deep longing of my heart for a real, committed relationship. One of the first things I learned about gang life was the mantra, “Blood in, blood out”. This just simply meant that you were required to shed blood (your own in a self-sacrificial activity like gang-banging in another gang’s territory that would likely get you thrashed or even killed) or the shedding of innocent blood in an armed robbery or potentially a murder. There was no way into the gang without bloodshed. Once you were in, there was no way out without bloodshed. This mostly meant that you were going to die if you ever wanted out, but in some instances, the exiting member would be ‘allowed’ to go through a gauntlet-style beating that would usually hospitalize them and complicate their health for the remainder of their life. I know it sounds barbaric, but I was desperate for authentic relationships. Ultimately (by the enormous grace of God) I chose a different path which mostly had to do with a God-sent gift sashaying into my cosmos by the name of Kay… who is now my covenant bride. We are most definitely committed unto the blood of self-sacrifice to one another without hesitation or consideration.
Suppose you, our reader, are married or intend to enter into the sacred and divine institution of a marriage covenant at some point in the future. In that case, these words must have a powerful resonation in your soul (nephesh, psyche). I have been doing full or part-time ministry for almost thirty years and the degradation of the covenantal aspect of marriage has been nearly destroyed by our ever-darkening world and the decay of basic humanity as we are propagandized into some animalistic attitudes towards relationships and society.
When a couple is joined in Holy Matrimony the vow is something akin to:
“I swear to honor and love you;
In riches and in poverty,
In sickness and in health,
For the better or the worse,
Until death do we part,
So help me God.”
Those are not just words… they are a covenant vow unto another person sworn in the presence of and under the submission to our Great God. In actuality, in antiquity, this was a “blood in, blood out” solemn oath giving God (and the gathered witnesses) the right to punish, even unto the shedding of blood, either participant if they violate that covenant vow. God’s perfect intention in marriage was ‘blood in’ (the blood of the hymen on the wedding night) and ‘blood out’ which was the ‘until death do we part’ provision.
The first thing we, as the image-bearers of God to a broken mirror of the world, need to embrace is doing our marriages the way God says, not the way culture or our fickle emotions scream. If that is a place you dare to transverse with Doc Ryan and I, then I double-dog-dare you to read on…
Glad you are here this far!
Since you have determined to do the hard thing and stay in this message to this point, firstly I want to applaud you for being willing to be a hero (heroes do hard things) and also warn you that you will be shunned as a rarity in our modern world. But consider that God loves to use heroes and rare people to do great things.
______________________________________________
“You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name.” Deuteronomy 10:20
Throughout the Bible God uses the relationship of Marriage to give us an earthly or physical example of our relationship to God and others. You don’t have to be married to glean from this discussion. God positions himself as the forever faith pursuer, the lover that will never leave us despite our shortcomings and continual failure and perhaps even unfaithfulness. Love, compassion, grace, mercy, and forgiveness are just a snapshot of this unending example to us. The Hebrew verb for cling is davaq and is the word used for glue. The implication is longevity, reliability, and consistency in faithful commitment.
What’s important is this: a husband is to cling to his wife in the same way that we are to cling to God. There are several other verses in the Bible that portray the same analogy. In each one, God is represented by the woman, not the man; the scriptures seem to imply a reciprocal role of equality that compliments the relationship by each person’s gifts. A reciprocal circle of grace accepted and freely returned.
The example of covenant relationship is not only exhibited or modeled in the biblical marriage through scripture, but then serves in many ways as an archetype of our relationship with God and between others merging the gap between heaven and earth. We see a glimmer or foreshadow of what all relationships will be in an eschatological sense in a recreated heaven and earth to come. A return to Eden. – Will Ryan Th.D.
______________________________________________
Every relationship is regularly challenged by conflict. There is an undeniable truth to this statement: “Familiarity breeds contempt”. It is true in many Christians relating to their relationship with God and also true in human relationships. The time of Jesus’ life and ministry was regularly hindered by the masses of people who could not reconcile the idea of Jesus being all human and all God at the same time. The majority of people in His time rejected Him because they justified their devaluation of Him based upon His humanity.
John 8:48-53 ESV
The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?”
Due to the conflict these religious hypocrites could not reconcile they all missed out on the greatest blessing, the greatest gift, and the greatest possible salvation that would give them the greatest life ever. Conflict steals away the blessings of God from one’s life. As people of the Kingdom of our God, we need to walk out a better way of dealing with ‘conflict and resolve’.
Luke 17:1 NKJV
Then He said to the disciples, “It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come!
Knowing it is impossible to do life without having conflict, we should be desirous to navigate this territory supernaturally. To begin that process we first need to answer the question: “Where do conflicts come from?”
In my attempt at brevity, I am going to only give you the ‘big two’.
Pride (me first, my wants, my ways, my control)
Lack of Understanding (comprehension of your covenant partner)
Let us take up arms against the first evil monster hungry to devour us as its prey… Pride.
Pride has two main expressions. The first we are all mostly familiar with is the overt me-istic, I-centric expression that displays itself in self-aggrandizing, self-focused, self-concerned, self-serving, and narcissistic type attitudes that usually turn our guts when we are confronted with it. Sadly, our culture today has turned pride into an object of worship (by abominable parades and a month-long holiday celebrating perversity). But the scriptures and the life of Christ make it uber clear that pride is an evil foe of everything good and right.
James 4:5-10 ESV
Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.”
These statements are echoed by Peter (1 Peter 5:5-7) and quoted from the wisdom of Proverbs (3:34). The stories of narcissistic pride destroying people in the scriptures are on nearly every page from the fall of the divine couple, Adam and Eve looking for their own way into the life of God, to the fall of the divine being ‘Lucifer’ into the wretched Satan as the arch-enemy of God and man, to the mind-numbing ignorance of David’s adulterous murder account of self-gratification resulting in a dead baby and a civil war, to the sadness of Judas selling Jesus for a pittance of silver coins.
A lesser-known expression of pride has the same dangers but is a bit more subtle. This is the prideful attitude of self-debasing words, actions, or identity. A person who operates in insecurity, low self-imaging, fearful social interactions, sheepish or shy behaviors, and isolation as an introvert is equally operating in pride. There are just at the other end of the spectrum. I illustrate it this way:
PR-I-DE.
Anything that has “I” in the center is pride. Whether it takes the form of PR-omoting the “I” or in the DE-basing of “I”… both are “I” in the center. Covenant is a commitment to lay down your “I” for another as Christ exemplified. The definitive aspect of what separates covenant from contractural- or performance-based relationships is the self-sacrificial commitment. In a secular performance-based contract of marriage, the normal interaction will be, “You do this for me and I will do that for you”. That is basically a business transaction where we are ‘purchasing’ the affection or performance of our spouse. The Bible has a word for this type of faux marriage: concubine.
Proverbs 13:10a KJV
Only by pride cometh contention
Only… that is a big word. The cause of any and all contention is pride. Yikes!
When I counsel marriages in this the most normal response is, “No way!” Most folks do not think the contention in their marriage is their fault… it has to be that OTHER person. The scriptures argue that it takes two to tango, and it would behoove us to agree with the scriptures.
James 3:16 Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For where there is envy and contention there is also chaos and every evil thing.
I often refer to this as the ‘other’ 3:16 verse that is WAY less memorized. John 3:16 makes us have warm fuzzies, James 3:16 makes us angry… Jesus said the truth will make you free (John 8:32) but in my experience, before the truth liberates you it tends to make you REALLY mad. Pride is the ONLY root of ALL contention. Where there is contention there is chaos and EVERY evil thing. (Think about that for a second… EVERY evil thing… like sickness, abuse, poverty, anger, oppression, depression, sin…) Does that statement illustrate any of the areas of your marriage?
The second cause of conflict in our covenant relationships is a lack of understanding. You do not know what you do not know. When we do not understand, the natural human response is to assume, analyze, or project our own opinions into the circumstances or motives. “I know why you did that! It is because you think I am stupid!” “No… no, I do not think you are stupid… I just wanted to do something nice for you.”
One of the most precarious places we can attempt to transverse is thinking we know another person’s motives. Kay and I have established a ‘rule’ that we are not allowed to assume one another’s emotions, intentions, or motives. It has actually affected the overall culture of Beloved Church because we have adopted the statement, “That person is blankety-blank at me right now.” What we mean by that is we recognize that something is going on in their heart but we will not speculate in arrogance as to what it is exactly. It requires communication, honesty, courage to be transparent, and a relational commitment to sincerely listen to one another.
But spiritual and covenantal ‘understanding’ is much larger than just a psychologically invented, and sociologically driven ‘model’ of interpersonal communication tactics. That is worldly, and frankly, arrogant as well.
Proverbs 11:2 BSB
When pride comes, disgrace follows, but with humility comes wisdom.
The divine weapon against pride is humility. Humility is the most virtuous character that is the most shunned and avoided in all of Christianity. The more humble we engage in relationships with one another the more fruitful, intimate, and unified they will ultimately be. Humility is a necessary component to spiritually based relationships, as in marriage covenants, because without humility true communication cannot exist.
1 Corinthians 2:11 BSB For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him? So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
If you look closely at that text you will see an eternal principle being expressed: it is only by the Spirit that any one of us can understand the heart. That means our own heart as well as the heart of our covenant spouse. Humility is required to embrace a principle like that because human wisdom and psychological analysis will defiantly argue that our cognitive functions are primitive chemical processes as a derivative of whatever emotion or disposition we randomly are being controlled by. No, Beloved reader. We were created much more complex than science has the capacity to embrace. ONLY by the Spirit of God can we rightly and effectively navigate the deep waters of each other’s souls.
Proverbs 20:5 BSB
The intentions of a man’s heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out.
When the Bible declares that something is deep, you can bet your bottom dollar it is DEEP. Notice though, that the way to draw that sweet cool water that is in that deep well out is through the ‘bucket’ of understanding. There is much strength and determined effort involved with lowering a bucket on a rope into a deep well and then, hand-over-hand, lifting that heavy bucket back up for the reward of a refreshing drink. The Spirit of God is Who gives us the ability (grace) to ‘understand’ each other in an accurate way. This should convince us of the great importance of knowing each other through the Spirit and not only by the flesh (or psychologically analyzed personalities).
2 Corinthians 5:16
So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
Our regard for one another needs to be of a spiritual valuation, not a carnal or natural one. This is only possible by intimacy with the Spirit where we are humbly submitted to allowing God to help us ‘understand’ our mate. This imperative to comprehend our spouse goes much further than just having a happy marriage.
1 Peter 3:7 ESV
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
The commitment to live with one another without contention, in humility, and submitted to the intimacy that can only come through the Spirit is necessary for our overall spiritual/soulical health beyond just our marital well-being. This verse says plainly that your prayer life will be hindered if this is not engaged in properly. You can search the scriptures and you will not find another place that declares a more direct reason for hindered prayers. That should impress upon us the needful resolve to guard our marriages voraciously, in these ways.
Doc Ryan and I are deeply invested in the covenantal realm for the body of Christ, especially in the arena of the marriage covenant. This is why we have penned this teaching together and sacrificed our time and energy to sow into your lives. We pray that your life is impacted and blessed by these words are truths to the degree that they inspire true repentance and change in whatever places your Good Father and your covenant community is shepherding you into.
In theology people are going to interpret passages differently...
This article has 7,330 words and will take most people 39 minutes to read.
My good friend Dr. Steve Cassell and I see 99.9% of theology very similarly. But occasionally we take slightly diverging views. I have said this before, but much of our relationship would look like an ongoing respectful healthy argument to most people. This may be described as a Mars Hill brotherhood. Perhaps you might say iron sharpening iron except that term is often used amongst disagreements which I do not think really summarizes our spiritual conversation. Steve and I have a healthy banter in which we work through all kinds of theologies going back and forth. Steve came from a word-of-faith background, and I came from a more traditional yet also spirit-filled background. Steve has been personally influenced by and is a regional representative for Andrew Womack Ministries International (AWMI.net). Both Steve and Andrew hold a minor view, not only recognizing that the cross brings spiritual healing (as nearly every Christian would confer) but also complete physical healing and health. Steve also sees the power to heal as similar to any other gift and I see it as possibly more of something God sets aside or “grants” to some extent; meaning you have it, or you don’t. Some people call this an anointing. Although this is another debated subject that you can read on here. In this case, I hold the mainstream view on healing and Steve holds a minor view.
Some of the minor views that we both hold would be to believe in conditionalism rather than the significantly more accepted view on ‘Hell’ of Eternal Conscious Torment. We also both see Heaven as an intermediate state with the final eschatological state or place for those with God as being a recreated Heaven and Earth (which most theologians I know would agree with, but your normal everyday church pew Christian doesn’t think this way.) We both do not hold a physical ‘rapture’ view of the ‘End Times’.
We also do not hold to any of the normal interpretations of the Calvinism TULIP. Most mainstream churches are going to agree with 2-3 Calvinist positions on this yet probably would not openly consider themselves Calvinist. We wouldn’t accept any of the TULIP views at least to the degree that a reformed church or Calvinist would present them. I could go all day on interpretations like this, but I think you get the point.
Today, I have invited Steve to join me in this article to explain and define our perhaps slight differences in terms of God’s healing power. To be clear we both believe and operate in faith for God’s healing power. Jesus said that believers will lay hands on the sick, and the sick will recover (Mark 16:18). (But our interpretations differ, will all sick recover or just some?) We both train the body of Christ so that they can do the work of the ministry in this area (Eph. 4:11-12). The day of the one-man show in the body of Christ needs to come to an end, and we are literally seeing that take place all around us in our respective opportunities of ministry. Steve and I experience firsthand miracles nearly every day that some people have never experienced (or even seen) once in their lifetime. In fact, we both expect God to do these things and in faith know that He does and will. In many ways we are expectant and in tune with the healing power of Jesus every hour of our lives. We experience nearly the same healing experiences day in and day out in the kingdom and yet explain the theology of what has taken place through different interpretive lenses. We both believe that everyone is called to heal in Jesus’ name and that in that sense it is a spiritual gift. Yet, I would believe that God chooses to empower some as anointed to truly have a more powerful version of this gift while others likely won’t get there. Perhaps that is a developed spiritual gift like any other, but some people seem to have it and others don’t.
This theological difference comes to fruition in varying ways. When someone comes to me and asks that we pray for healing for them or someone else I often feel the spirit telling me right away that they will be healed or that we need to simply pray for God’s will. If I feel the spirit telling me they are going to be healed then I simply declare it in Jesus’ name, and they are healed. I can probably count the times on one hand when this didn’t come to fruition and I can’t tell you why, but I am also not hung up on it. As you can imagine, this is confusing to people asking for me to heal them or simply pray for healing. “Why did Doc Ryan pray and heal one person and then the next person in line he simply shared perhaps a theology of trusting in the Lord, faith, timing, sovereignty, why God may not choose to intervene, or even ministry through brokenness?”
Dr. Steve on the other hand seems to strongly believe that if the person that comes to him has the faith to be healed, they will be (since he also leads by that faith.) In fact, sometimes I see Dr. Steve as being so set apart as God’s healing agent that perhaps God tips His hat to Dr. Steve and allows Steve to command healing even when that may not have been the plan of God. (Oh boy…. this just set off a bunch of peoples alerts on what they think of the sovereignty of God and changeability might or should be.) I would say this is very similar to those that we see in scripture that have the intimacy to wrestle with God and God actually has honored their requests and seemingly delayed or changed his mind as a result of empowering them to actually harness the manifestation of God’s power in them. You might recall in Exodus 32 when Moses pleaded with God so that he would not destroy the people he had saved. The Lord told Moses he would not take out his wrath on Israel. Moses immediately picked up the two stone tablets the Lord had given to him earlier, with the Ten Commandments on them, and returned them to his people. (you may want to look at this wording again) God may even endow His power and doesn’t necessarily keep track or intervene in every situation but allows the person to represent Him in this way. The disciples seem to have been given powers yet come back telling Jesus they couldn’t heal some. Jesus was even unable to heal at one point in Matthew 13 and Mark 6. So, what are all the dynamics of healing?
I have invited Steve to chime in on this article and have noted his comments in blue:
Hello Expedition 44 peeps! Dr. Steve here…
Doc Ryan is accurate in everything he has portrayed about our covenantal relationship and my beliefs. I am interjecting in this place and will do this periodically throughout the article to clarify or exegete my position. This is my first place to interrupt quickly. The first sentence of the last paragraph stating my faith for believing in a 100% manifestation for everyone who approaches me in faith (please note ‘IN FAITH’) comes from ‘watching’ the ministry of Jesus. There was never a time or a person who was turned away when they approached Him in humility and faith. It is a bit simplistic just to base a theology on a truth like that, but I tend to be a smidge more simple regarding actual interactive ministry. Theology is infinitely complex because the One we study (-ology, from the Greek ‘logos’) is infinitely complex. But the Gospel is simple and should remain that way. The way Jesus did the actual ministry (adding in the progressive developing aspects of the ekklesia and ecclesiology of the Epistles and Acts) is what I target as a carbon copy (same with Doc Ryan).
Hebrews 1:3a – ‘The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature…’
Hebrews 13:8 – ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.’
We both Agree with Andrew Womack when he says, “One of the worst doctrines in the body of Christ is the belief that God controls everything that happens. Fundamentalists/Evangelical Christians believe that God either controls or allows everything and that Satan has to get His permission before he can do anything.” That’s a convenient theology because it absolves the individual of any personal responsibility. God’s will doesn’t automatically come to pass. We have to believe and cooperate with God to receive what He has provided and in some cases, “covenanted” for us.
But from there Steve and I slightly part ways. AWMI and Steve would continue…
___________________////___________________
Andrew’s theology regarding healing is often referred to as “the finished work of the cross.” Personally, I cringe at this simply because I never like to give merit to the cross. (IMHO, this is a Calvinist phrase usually tied into the doctrine of limited atonement, so we often don’t use this phrase.) Steve has actually changed his verbiage over the years to say, “the finished work of Jesus.” I don’t want to wear a crucifix or even entertain much observance of the cross because I want to focus on the resurrection and ascension that gave life. Yes, the cross was part of the plan, so this isn’t a huge problem for me, but I prefer to focus on the victory of the stories in Jesus -not dark places that were traveled on the way to victory. It is similar to someone sharing a testimony… don’t spend an hour on the muck that you lived in (sounding like you are almost bragging about it) and 5 minutes on the redemption, flip it around. There is a place for the cross but the focus of nearly all of the NT after the Gospel is on the resurrection and what that means for “salvation” and life in Christ here and now but also to come. I do realize that seeing a cross can point people to the victory of Jesus which is why I have a cross at the “range” where we have TOV and have for many years.
Steve here again… Doc Ryan is right again. I have adjusted my language due to the expansion of my revelation on the atonement. The aggregation of information and bringing in the vast matrix of typological precursors from the Old Testament sources has expanded how I understand the atonement to be. (To expand your understanding, see Expedition 44 series on ‘Atonement’ HERE.) Yet knowing that each facet of that atonement process was known, calculated, and used for human redemption is stronger in me today than before. I see that the stripes Jesus took for our healing (1 Peter 2:24) have an even stronger application knowing that Jesus’ atonement was sufficient in all areas, for all people, for all time.
___________________////___________________
With that let’s jump in, Healing is already an accomplished work according to I Peter 2:24,
“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”
STEVE: The term ‘healed’ is in the simple past tense (aorist indicative passive). RYAN GREEK 101: The Aorist is used for past time and portrays perfective aspect (portraying the action as a bounded whole, or in summary fashion without reference to the way it unfolds in time). As a Passive tense, the subject is the patient of the verbal action: “he was eaten,” “they were killed.” Grammatically in this verse we both agree healing is an action that took place and happened once, the action itself (the cross) theologically doesn’t need to continue or happen again. What it “accomplished” is good for all of time.
The real question then is whether the implication is spiritual and/or physical healing. To this, Steve would say that Jesus isn’t healing people today— that “work” was accomplished 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem when He took those stripes on His back. He hasn’t, and won’t, receive any more stripes. People today only receive through faith what has already been accomplished by Jesus thousands of years ago. (To be clear I -Ryan agree with this in a sense of spiritual healing, we have everything we need, and we aren’t looking for any other continued work of Jesus to make healing possible.)
Andrew would continue, the Scriptures don’t tell us to pray for the sick, in the sense that we are powerless to minister healing to them. It’s just the opposite: Jesus told US to HEAL the sick (Matt. 10:1, 8; Luke 9:1, and 10:9). There’s a big difference between asking the Lord to heal people and healing them. Since Jesus is with us and will never leave me nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5), Steve would then assert that I can say with the Apostle Peter, “Such as I have give I thee” (Acts 3:6). ON the other hand, some would say that none of us has authority to heal a body, only the Creator does (Acts 3:12–13). I do not generally recommend articles from Desiring God as they tend to have a reformed bend to them, but in the spirit of reading another perspective, you might enjoy this post.
Steve here… There is a bit of a semantic point I must make. I (Steve) cannot heal anyone, ever. My confidence and power come from the designated authority granted unto me by the Great Commission and the infilling of the Holy Spirit which is where I parallel Peter’s ideology. I have the power because I have the Creator in me and His known will is to heal (Matt 8:3) congruent with His universal command to heal in the Commission. RYAN – Yes but we both agree that power is endowed to us. We are the hands and feet and physical manifestation of Jesus.
To continue, Andrew (and Steve) would say that this is what Peter said when he ministered to the lame man in Acts 3. Peter didn’t pray for this man. He didn’t say, “O God, we can do nothing without You. Please heal this man if it is Your will.” They would say and I would agree that it’s always God’s will to heal (3 John 2). We don’t ask and then wait and see. That’s not believing His Word. Instead of beggars, we need to become believers who, knowing God’s will, use our authority to heal. I believe that at least some of us (and all of us who claim Jesus to some extent) have this endowed gift from God or physical power given to us.
Steve again… I do not believe this to be a ‘some of us’ condition. The argument over the ‘have and have nots’ has raged in Christianity for far too long. I believe that there is no clergy and laity (a stale old power trip to repress the masses), no less anointed or more anointed (because when you have the Spirit of Christ you have ALL the anointing), no age limit (our children’s church sees healing all the time), and no gender category (my wife Kay is equally effective as I am). The language of ‘gift’ is usually where the disqualification seeps into one’s identity with the thought, “I just do not have that gift.” But if you were to exegete the word ‘gift’ you would see it is a derivative of ‘charis’ (grace). John tells us (John 1) that Jesus was the fullness of grace and truth. When you have Jesus you have the fullness of the Godhead in your Earthly existence and you are complete in Him (Col 2:9-10). RYAN: Steve says this really well!!! I agree, but obviously some gifts are matured and or used or even granted by God more than others.
So where do I/we slightly diverge? I would say a few things to clarify Andrew Womacks statements, and Steve actually agrees with almost everything I would assert here… We personally don’t (regularly) see through the eyes of God, although occasionally some gifted people can and do (seers). His ways are higher than ours. Hebraically it would be very selfish to think that we can request what we want “over” a God who knows more than I do. In other words, to assert that I know that healing is best in every situation is out of my pay grade. Yes, Jesus believes in healing and might endow that power to me but it also might not be in God’s “timing” or order. This could explain why sometimes God doesn’t seem to allow healing through those that were formerly given and proved to have had such things.
Steve here… My perspective is God wants people healed more than I ever could. God loves people more than I ever could. God wants people, all people, everywhere to call upon the name of the Lord for salvation (sōthēsetai, sozo) (Rom 10:13). I do not believe that God ‘wills’ some people for damnation and others for salvation and would see that known will to apply to a lesser form of ‘salvation’ in the manifestation of healing. If God loves every person enough to provide eternal salvation for them, surely His love would surpass the smaller expression of salvation in physical (or emotional) healing (Rom 8:11 and 8:32). RYAN: Well, this falls into the classic, God has the power and God has the desire so why aren’t all things and all people simply reconciled? They aren’t.
Some healing is eschatological in my view. God has created and continues to operate according to His order. We may think we know that, but I don’t think we always do. I think the ancient word order is the best way to say God’s “decisions” may be influenced by a plethora of other conditions. I see this more like the modern word algorithm. Many things come into play that may determine the will of God for any particular person or situation. There are several Biblical words for order and Jeff Benner helps us out with understanding them, but in this case, I would point you to consider the Hebrew root סדר, which again has the root דר (dar) within it. As an example, the verb סדר is found in Job 10:22; A land of darkness is like a darkness of death and without order, and the light is like darkness. This imagery is reminiscent of Genesis 1 where the heavens and the earth were in total darkness, a state of chaos. The creative power of God then “ordered” the world into a state of “order.” [1] Some things are just “above us” and I do not think we will understand them until we reach an eschatological time of understanding spiritually. I see us as watching that movie of our pasts with new eyes perhaps in heaven. My book This is the Way of Covenant Discipleship expounds on this more.
To continue both Andrew and Steve would say that they have prayed for thousands of people across the globe, and they have yet to see every person healed. It might be a problem in the heart of the one receiving prayer, or it might be something they don’t understand in regard to that particular person. But one thing they would exert or say they know for sure—it’s not God. – Personally, I would disagree. I think God’s order may be bigger than what Steve or Andrew see and believe. I also think a fallen world comes into play here. Some things are just broken and can’t be fixed this side of “death.”
Steve again… I agree with Doc Ryan that our cosmos is jacked up beyond repair in some places (human government, death, the Laws of Entropy) and is groaning with pain until the Sons of God releases it in the Eschatological Day of the Lord. (What a day that will be! Come Lord Jesus come!) But I would not classify healing here. I do not believe that what the forces of deception started through the nahash in the Garden of Eden are greater or stronger than what the Son of Man lifted up on the cross (John 3:14-15) redeemed. What Jesus accomplished in the Garden of Gethsemane is greater than what the snake did in the Garden of Eden. Jesus was the victor in the battle of the Gardens… Ryan – Amen!
___________________////___________________
An excursus on James 5:13-16: Healing, Illness, and Resurrection
Above we see that Andrew Womack says that we should not pray for the sick but simply heal them. James 5:13-16 seems to contradict this line of thought.
13 Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer offered in faith willrestore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
In this pericope, there are 2 separate words for “sick”. In verse 14 it is astheneo. this is a word used for sickness 18 times in the NT, and most of the LXX usage of the word is for someone who is feeble or sick. In this verse in James, the elders are asked to “pray” over him.
The second word translated as sick in verse 15 is kamonta. This word is not about illness but about being weary. In this context, it is weary from sin. So this could be sin that has led to sickness when you combine the two in the context and links back to “suffering” in verse 13 which leads off the passage.
The solution is prayer and confession in verse 16. Confession and forgiveness bring healing (is this physical healing or spiritual healing?) Now the question is about whether this is only about sin that has led to illness that has to be prayed for to bring healing or all illness? Isn’t all illness, disorder, and weariness a result of the Fall? So shouldn’t we pray for all of it?
God desires to bring about new creation in all of us! As Romans 8:19-25 states all of creation is waiting for the sons of God to be revealed and this revealing is communicated as healing through our resurrection (the redemption of our bodies). Paul explains elsewhere in 2 Corinthians 5 that this is a distinction between an earthy tent (our current body) versus a building from God (our resurrected bodies). Similarly, he speaks in 1 Corinthians 15:36 of the need to die to be resurrected because a seed does not produce life unless it dies. So if Jesus “purchased” full healing in this life what is the purpose of the resurrection of the body? If Jesus’ healing was the resurrection, why wouldn’t ours also be? Maybe the healing in this life is spiritual (and resuscitation of life), but actual true healing is in their resurrection.
Steve again… This is a place I will deviate from Doc Ryan a smidge as well. I teach in our covenant community (Beloved Church) that sickness and disease have been defeated through the atonement, but that does not assert that the aging process of time has been canceled. Just as one must fight for holiness against sin (which was FULLY defeated in the atonement) one must fight the temptation for sickness and disease attacking one’s flesh because it was equally defeated. Our enemy is a persistent cuss and will try and enslave us with the defeated force of sin and will equally try to kill us with the defeated forces of sickness, disease, strife, pride, and all the other tricks up his slimy sleeve.
___________________////___________________
The next issue that similarly we don’t see eye to on is healing through the atonement. It might be good to simply first read the AWMI statement on this here. I am going to be quoting several things from this post. [2] Andrew Wommack also has a more in-depth book on this subject called, “God Wants You Well”, and I would suggest reading it regardless of your view. (NOTE: I have more books on my bookshelf that I don’t agree with than I do, this is a good measure of truly searching for spiritual truth.) I also love AWMI and believe we can learn a great deal from them and as believers need to support His ministry; I just don’t see eye to eye on this one small part of his overall theology which has come to be what he is largely known for.
Andrew (AWMI) would say that Jesus has already “purchased” healing for us. In theology, this is referred to as the ransom theory of atonement. I believe in a ransom theory in terms of Jesus “freeing the slaves” in an exodus sense of freedom, but within most ransom theories of atonement (and specifically the way that AWMI often uses it) the statements bring connotations of purchasing or buying back something. I don’t see God needing to purchase anything back from Satan (as this would put Satan with equal authority to God or having divine “rights”), or Jesus needing to buy something from God for us (Jesus and the Father are one). Moses didn’t “pay” for the Israelites from Pharoah, he simply took back what some might say was rightfully His. This seems to be more of a spiritual war than what we would describe as a purchase agreement by most people’s standards. Some would argue that this is also an example of simply letting God fight all of our battles, as Jesus also seems to allude or suggest to His followers.
Continuing, AWMI would assert that in Matthew 8:17, it says that these healings that took place were the fulfillment of the prophecy spoken by Isaiah, “With his stripes we are healed.” Andrew would interpret that this was the fulfillment that ‘He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses’ essentially alluding to that being at the cross Jesus healed our physical sicknesses, hurts, and pains. Jesus healed people physically to fulfill the scripture that says we are healed by His stripes.
-Hermeneutically I can’t do that for several reasons. I would say that most Christians do this though. I wouldn’t assert that is what the text says, I would say that is personally eisegeting the text to say something that I wouldn’t naturally read into it. Some would say we don’t have the interpretive right to make those deductions from the text (We get into some of this in this post). But if we look at this verse in context it is before Jesus even went to the cross. The effects of the ministry of the servant brought healing (not just the death on the cross). Yes, there is spiritual healing, but I don’t see the text providing all physical healing. By this measure, it would seem that no one should ever physically die. That assumption that God’s healing at the cross not only gives everlasting spiritual life but everlasting physical life here on earth obviously isn’t the case.
Steve again… This is one of the places where I think theology can get in the way and overcomplicate a simple truth. In the first sixteen verses of Matthew 8, we see a leper healed (an impossible healing by Hebraic standards) specifically because Jesus expresses it is His will for healing. Then we have a disgusting uncircumcised gentile who should have no access to the God of the Jews but Jesus makes it clear He is atoning for ALL people by healing the centurion’s slave (Slave! Another disqualified person!) without question or stipulation. Next, we have Peter’s mother-in-law (I thought a Pope could not be married… hmmm…) who gets healed simply because she was in the same house as Jesus. A woman! A mother-in-law (yikes)! Without requesting! Hard to get away from the interpretation of anybody, anytime conclusion. Then, like a cherry on top, the next part of the narrative is verse 16: “When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to Jesus, and He drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.” They just brought the masses… sinners, unrighteous, rejects, sick-from-birth folks, demon-filled mentally ill peeps, and then like an exclamation point Matthew throws in the “ALL” word to just mess with his readers. It is not coincidental that after all that, Matthew specifically tells us why, under the unction of the Holy Spirit, all of these diverse types of healings were done: This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took on our infirmities and carried our diseases.” This just seems too clear to miss Matthews’s doctrine of healing being stated, to me. Matthew seems to unabashedly call Jesus the Isaiah 53 suffering servant and part of His ministry was to defeat disease. The educated second-temple Jews reading this would have known the messianic profile that included authority over demonic beings would also include power over physical sickness/disease. RYAN: Jesus certainly had and has power of sickness and disease but when he was on earth, He didn’t seem to physically heal everyone he came in contact with, some were healed, and some weren’t. He was specific with some in healing and the woman who touched His cloak found this power but not everyone around Him or came to him was healed.
SCHOLARLY NOTE ON WHY ISAIAH 53 MAY BE A STRETCH: Using Isaiah 53 in this way as I alluded to is also hermeneutically not very acceptable by the measure of most scholars. Although I will say it is arguable. I will keep this brief, but the intended audience wouldn’t have read it this way. You have to backread this kind of messianic physical healing into the story. Several issues come into play here. Critical scholars are unified in thinking that this part of Isaiah (chs. 40-55) was not written by Isaiah of Jerusalem in the 8th century BCE, but by a different author in the mid-6th century BCE, after exile into Babylon. [3] It is to be remembered that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible are speaking to their own contexts and delivering a message for their own people to hear, about their own immediate futures… they aren’t telling fortunes, that was considered divination. There is a place for prophetical prediction but not as much as people entertain IMHO. The suffering servant here might have messianic implications but that can be problematic that not all of the personal attributes in IS 53 can describe Jesus. As an example, some of the things just aren’t true to Jesus. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future, they are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. Does this mean it ALSO can’t represent a future Messiah? Well to some hard-line scholars and methods of interpretation, the answer might be YES. For at least hundreds of years, Jews never interpreted this passage as referring to a future messiah. To be clear, I am not saying that it can’t have Messianic implications. But it is a very difficult passage and what I am saying, is that within the textures of interpretation, you never draw a major doctrine from a difficult passage that can’t be easily supported elsewhere. The problem is that seems to be exactly what AWMI has done with this passage.
I do agree with a lot of what Andrew says, I think his determination of the Greek word sozo is accurate, and I agree that “Healing is just as much a part of what Jesus came to accomplish in your life as forgiveness of sins.” I also agree when he says that “God is not the author of sickness in your life.” However, what I have a hard time with is his conclusion then that “God would not want you to live in sickness.” I believe some things on this earth are simply effects of a broken world. The ditch this digs is that AWMI seems to be teaching that if you have everything in spiritual order you will never be sick. So then when sickness comes you are continually questioning God on what is wrong with you or your faith, or your devotion, or your heart. You must not be experiencing healing because of your actions or lack of them. I don’t believe that. Some things are just a result of a broken world that eschatologically will eventually be healed in Jesus – but not everything will be healed here or now. We are in a state of transformation called sanctification, but Andrew would say that on earth is possible to attain that “complete” sanctification in physical healing and I would disagree – we physically die here on earth. To me, that seems pretty simple and evident and possibly even un-arguable.
Steve again… and I will dare to argue the inarguable just for a moment of healthy banter with Doc Ryan. I completely agree that we will die here on earth, and that is something that will happen to all of us. I would just argue the assumption that one must become sick, diseased, infirm, infected, and unhealthy to die. The New Testament makes a strong distinction between the death of an unbeliever and the ‘falling asleep’ of the believer. It is just personal conjecture to imply that God needs us to get eventually sick in order to die so that we can then have access to our resurrected (celestial) bodies. I believe that sickness is as much an enemy of God’s will in a person as sin is. Sin means to ‘miss the mark’ and being sick misses the mark of the creative intention of our bodies through the ‘very good’ (Gen 1:31) declaration of scripture… even science would capitulate to the truth that our bodies were designed to fight all sickness, disease and mutation. I love how God can make narcissistic scientists squirm with His infinite wisdom. RYAN – I wouldn’t see most sickness as associated or deemed as sin, but would also agree it can be a result of sin in your life.
Andrew says it is ‘false teaching’ to claim that “God is the One who causes people to die” or to say that God “puts sickness on you to humble you for some redemptive purpose and to perfect you through all this suffering” and I agree! I think that is a poor ditch that Calvinism and reformed theology continue to put people in. God is “TOV” His character doesn’t generally “DO” that people; although there may be situations where He may “USE” such things to His workings or divine order.
On the other hand, in his book, Andrew also asserts that the cross redeems believers from financial poverty. In 2 Cor 8:9, Paul says that Jesus became poor so that through his poverty believers might become rich. Wommack takes Paul literally here which I don’t agree with entirely although this is another conversation on the retribution principle and prosperity which I do somewhat see a place for. But here as it relates to this conversation, AWMI would say that Jesus’ death and resurrection provide for Christians ‘forgiveness of sins, healing, deliverance, and prosperity’ in this life (p. 20). The main issue with this kind of thinking as I have alluded to earlier is, if God intervenes for all believers to be completely well in this lifetime, why are so many seemingly devout believers that are not “well” or not rich?
Steve again, quickly… This is a slippery slope that can engulf some believers. We cannot and should not ever determine God’s will based on the experiences of some, and even the experiences of the masses. God always has had and will have a remnant of people who have experiences others do not and will not. Just because every believer does not experience peace, or joy, or forgiveness does not mean that they cannot. Prosperity and health are available to all, but not all will accept (or even know) that it is for them, just like other great and precious promises annotated throughout scripture.
___________________////___________________
To be clear here are specifically the things that I think Andrew’s theology on healing is a bit off:
He argues that illness and even death (p. 88) can be overcome in this age. I would say that is a poor hermeneutical claim. In fact, I might say that many verses seem to say the opposite, that God will swallow death and wipe away all tears after this life (Isa 25:8). I would also assert that this world is broken and is wasting away (2 Cor 4:16), and only at the coming of Jesus will we receive resurrection bodies (1 Cor 15:23). That’s why Paul says we are waiting for the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:23). It seems clear that the Bible indicates that in this present physical world men are appointed by God to die (e.g., Ps 90; Heb 9:27). Wouldn’t Andrews theology have more people living physically forever or being taken up into the cloud or whirlwind without actually experiencing physical death? Wouldn’t we have at least a handful of people each one of us knows experiencing this? But we don’t.
Steve here… Andrew does not believe death as a whole is to be overcome in the age, just death that is contrary to God’s plan for a person, more specifically, premature or wrongfully caused death. Otherwise, the many commands (and Jesus’ examples) to raise the dead are nonsequiturs and unrighteous. Why make the command (not request) to ‘raise the dead’ if death was supposed to just be? RYAN – Raising the dead is a possibility within God’s will but not for everyone who is in God’s will.
Wommack argues that Christians are redeemed from sickness and poverty but not from persecution. I see tribulation as being very key to a person’s ongoing process of sanctification. I don’t think Jesus causes the hardship but uses it in a sense of refining us. It also is going to reflect back on the idea of the prosperity gospel. As I do believe that God desires for us to experience all of the Joy he offers, some of it may not be experienced physically here on earth. I would not say that Paul was prosperous by the world’s definition after his conversion encounter on the road. If persecution exists wouldn’t sickness be part of that? Wommack answers that God allows the persecution of Christians because he loves the persecutors and wants them to repent (pp. 76–77). But Luke 22:42 suggests another reason: Jesus understands that his crucifixion is the will of God. God did not want Jesus ‘well’—God allowed (and some will even say “willed” without necessarily taking on Calvinist notions,) Jesus physically dead in order to accomplish His great redemptive purposes (Isa 53:6; Rom 8:32; Luke 22:42; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). If God in His wisdom allowed the suffering and death of his own Son, can he not allow suffering and sickness for the followers of His Son in order to accomplish his sovereign purposes? Andrew might argue a substitutional atonement theory here, that Christ took this on so that we wouldn’t have to; but I don’t think that is a good view. I think I can lightly agree to a metaphorical extent that Jesus’ death and resurrection served as a “substitute for us” but even thinking this way carries some implications that are hard to reconcile. I think Boyd can help us with this consideration. [4]
Steve again… I think this argument could be settled by the clear deviation of persecution and tribulation. Persecution that we are all universally subject to, and should even rejoice in when afflicted with, is a directed assault against us for the purpose of hindering or stopping the advancement of the Gospel or the Kingdom. Tribulation is the general agitation of life that affects the believer and unbeliever alike. A lost sinner can be tribulating because he is human, but they cannot be persecuted for righteousness sake. As ministers of reconciliation, we will suffer persecution and we are not redeemed from it because we were specifically PROMISED it by our Lord.
Finally, many Christians testify that much (or even most) of their growth in holiness has occurred through suffering (cf. Ps 119:67, 71). However according to Wommack, although someone may learn character-transforming lessons through illness, that was not God’s plan which would imply that God shouldn’t or wouldn’t allow or use it. I agree that I doubt it was his plan, but I do see God using it.
Steve again… I agree as well. God’s perfect plan is for us to learn everything through the Spirit and the scriptures, but because we miss the perfect all too often God has this loving and merciful backup plan of redeeming our mistakes into a beautiful and powerful lesson that is called a ‘testimony’.
___________________////___________________
Despite where you land here, I think it is important to understand that we need to live in unity as believers regarding the way we see healing work. One night at TOV, I said something to the extent of, “Regardless of your theology of healing, join with me in praying within the Will of God that this person may be healed.” The scripture seems to show that through prayer God’s will may be swayed towards the hearts of those that are intimate with Him. I think we can all pray for healing and/or just heal if we believe God works in us that way, but I also think it is important to realize that one person’s views on healing aren’t undeniably proven through scripture. There are different valid interpretations and we need to honor and respect people who may feel differently, uniting on what we can agree on.
Perhaps through His order, God has already taken into account these requests and has accounted for them in faith. As we will never truly know the answer to this debate on this side of heaven, we are charged to grow deeper as disciples and pray for such things. In the end, regardless of your thoughts, we all can agree that eventually every believer will be brought to complete healing in Jesus.
Steve here in finality… My love and unity with Doc Ryan is greater today than yesterday even as we have engaged in the polemics of this deep and vast subject. A major reason for that is we have determined our covenantal love and Christian honor for one another greatly exceeds our doctrinal differences. In our unity, we both agree that God heals and that we love people enough to want them to experience that blessing. In our humility, we will both adamantly assert that MANY folks do not get healed and we do not know why. Yet that does not dissuade us from pressing into the heart of God, it moreso invigorates us towards God, His heart, and His truth. Division is demonic, diversity is divine. We pray that is your conclusion as well. RYAN – Amen and well said brother!
This article was primarily written by Dr. Will Ryan, responded to and edited by Dr. Steve Cassell, and edited in part by Dr. Matt Mouzakis.
Have you ever noticed that the very first occurrence of the word “LOVE” in scripture refers to Abraham’s passion for His son Isaac? The word is used to first describe the long-awaited child of Sarah. But does that feeling change over time? In our previous post (PART 1) we wrestled with Abraham’s “love” for Isaac and noted the hardships that came into the picture. Perhaps this love was perpetrated more from Sarah than Abraham. In Hebrew the first word of a sentence often serves as a guidepost of the main thought. In the same way an “idea” might be introduced in such a way to show significance. It could be that the word “LOVE” is first used as contronym form. This is often found in Hebraic writing forms as an emphasis of the opposite strengths. I have written a good deal about Hebraic contronyms. In this case we might be introduced to the story using the word “LOVE” for the first time to stress what God’s “love” shown in His character looks like next to the “broken love” of the world.
This is the story of archetype faith, indeed, it was this very hope in God’s promise that moved God to rename Abram to Abraham, and Sarai to Sarah. But who was the real Archetype of Faith?
In Jewish tradition, the drama of the sacrifice of Abraham’s beloved son is called the Akedah (עֲקֵדָה, “binding”), which as we have pointed out is traditionally regarded as the supreme test of Abraham’s obedience and faith. The blast of the shofar is intended to remind us of God’s gracious atonement provided through the substitutionary sacrifice of the lamb (as well as to “drown out” the voice of the accuser). In this way, the Akedah represents the truth of the Gospel, and how God’s attribute of justice was “overcome” by His attribute of compassion (Psalm 85:10). We see some truth to these traditional interpretations of atonement but also have pointed out that there is much more to be considered; not to mention some theological problems with the traditional views having to do with substitutionary atonement and “power over” retributive justice problems.
One aspect that is often overlooked is Sarah. Perhaps she is in many regards a better archetype of faith, or dare we even say role model of faith, than Abraham was. It is no secret that Expedition 44 believes in the return to the ideals of Eden. In this way, we see the dual covenant partnership of men and women, husband and wife, and as equal ambassadors of the royal priesthood that we were set apart to be. Today, as we celebrate mothers, we want to take a deeper look at the life of Sarah in this story.
“After these things…” We always want to build on the context of the our previous posts (PART 1) discussion. The story of the offering of Isaac, Abraham’s “promised seed,” begins with the statement, “After these things God tested Abraham…” (Gen. 22:1). The phrase, “after these things” (וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה) in Hebrew connects to the next image that “Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba and called there on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God. And Abraham sojourned many days in the land of the Philistines” (Gen. 21:33-34). The Tamarisk tree here recalls the tree of life that is figuratively being restored in hopes of bringing back order that was lost. This is a sign from early on that Abraham believed that God was making a way to return to the Edenic plan that was lost; which in some part meant a return to the equality of the royal priesthood. This is “reverse the curse” language and imagery.
———
Sarah gave birth to Isaac when she was 91 years old (Gen. 17:17, 21), and she later died when Isaac was 36 years old, at the age 127 (Gen. 23:1). The Bible doesn’t give us the cause of death, but the midrash Tanchuma says that Sarah “died from shock.” Jewish tradition states that her soul departed from her. Genesis 23:2 says “And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to cry for her.” When we read this in Hebrew, we find something the English doesn’t reveal, the text of the phrase “and to cry for her” (וְלִבְכּתָה) is written with a diminutive letter Kaf, which scholars ascribe as Abraham’s mourning for his deceased wife to have been restrained. Could Abraham have believed in faith that God would raise her from the dead, does Hebrews 11 suggest this? Or is there another reason for restraint?
Have you ever considered that it is Sarah, not Isaac who was actually the sacrificed of the Akedah? Some have even suggested that Sarah prayed to God: “Let me die for my son; let me die in place of my son…” Could Sarah’s love have been so great it brought Isaac back to life from the dead? Various sages wonder why Sarah lived only 127 years while Abraham lived to be 175, that is, 48 years more. Perhaps it is ironic that Sarah’s years amounted to the number of years Abraham lived as ha-Ivri (הָעִבְרִי), in Hebraic thought this is a term that identifies his relationship to the one true God (some might describe this as being saved). Since Abraham was 48 years old when he came to believe, and a convert is regarded as a newborn, then Abraham lived (as a believer) exactly 127 years, precisely as long as did Sarah. There are some implications on Calvinism as she is often regarded as walking in faith from birth, but that is another post.
Essentially, we are given then from the text that Sarah walked in Faith all of her days and Abraham did not, but matched her days in faith as a sign of the “return” to the equality of the tree as to the Royal Priesthood as it was intended in Eden.
———
In Jewish tradition Sarah is one of four most beautiful women who ever lived (both inwardly and outwardly.) Agree with it or not, the Rabbis asserted that by the time she gave birth to Isaac, she was regarded as virtually sinless (Bereshit Rabbah 58:1). The Talmud (Megillah 14a) explains that Iscah was another name for Sarah (Gen. 11:29), meaning “to gaze.” The Hebrew word for face is “panim” (פָּנִים) and is written the same way as the Hebrew word for inside, “penim” (פְּנִים), suggesting that Sarah’s beauty was both external and internal. You may be aware that Sarah is described often as the first prophetess. This comes in part from a word play in Hebrew as people enjoyed “gazing upon her beauty” her real beauty was that she had the ability to “gaze” into the heavens; later this is what prophets described as “seers” who had the ability to see more clearly or perhaps even from the eyes of God. We believe this is still a spiritual gift that some might describe as a spiritual sense; we also believe that when you have the Holy Spirit in you, you have this sense. Like every spiritual gift some have it more than others. Some scholars would argue that Sarah could have been different in that she may have been born with this sense or gift in a mature state.
Her first name Sarai in Hebrew (שָׂרַי, “my princess”), meant princess and could have denoted her as an Egyptian princess which Gen 12:11-20 might allude to; but later she is *renamed by the Lord because of her faith as Sarah (שָׂרָה, which also meant “princess”, but is slightly different. In Hebrew text also has a number correlation and often means something. This is a form of numerology. Regarding Sarah’s name change, the Yod (whose numerical value is 10) was “taken” from Sarai and divided into two Heys (whose numerical value is 5). Half was given (by God) to form the name Sarah and the other half was given to form the name Abraham (from Abram). The implication was that she was already “whole” or “complete” which later is described by Jesus as “perfection” being what believers can attain to in the way they are made new in Christ. In this thinking, Abraham was not complete and needed something from her to be returned to the complete or equal state. There is a sense of “reversing hermon” going on here if you speak that language. It is a reverse of the God taking something from Adam to make Eve; for Abraham to be reinstated, Sarah would have to give something from herself. That is why if you don’t read this in Hebrew you can’t truly understand the implications of Hebrews 11 and why Sarah is actually considered “THE” true heroine of faith (Heb. 11:11) and Abraham isn’t mentioned. Is your mind blown yet? Essentially, at this point in the Timeline what God was attempting to accomplish in Sarah was to re-establish the royal priesthood that had been lost in the fall. Perhaps she thought Issac was the one that would bring life, and perhaps that was God’s plan that men then continued to mess up. The woman began the fall, but man has sustained it. Together in covenant relationship through a strand of three cords we can restore it, but will we get there and when?
[NOTE: Some believe our spiritual names exist before time itself and that God simply reveals them to us, not necessarily renaming us as we are “His” from inception. some have concluded that this is part of the world taking us and then God reclaiming us.]
The Midrash states a divine presence such as a cloud, hovered over her tent, as a foreshadow of the cloud that walked with Israel in the desert. Many scholars have alluded that Sarah was without a doubt an equal to Abraham, and perhaps even more in tune with God. You might remember that when Sarah sent Ishmael away Abraham was unsure, and God had to tell him to listen to her voice in Genesis 21:12. Remember when Abraham lied about here saying, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her. Then the Angel told Abraham not to worry because she was surrounded by a divine presence.
There is one last thing that needs to be mentioned. Sarah represents the “life” of Abraham. As I mentioned, Abraham outlives her by 48 years. But did you ever notice that this seems to be the end of the narrative voice for Abraham in the Bible? When Sarah dies, He might as well die; and perhaps He does in God’s eyes. When you read carefully you find that even though we continue to “know” or “be told” more of Abraham’s story there is no further dialogue recorded between God and Abraham after Sarah’s death. It is also pretty crazy that the last story we have of Abraham which is seeking a wife for Isaac is noted as the result of Sarah’s will for her son. She was also the first person to be buried in the Promised land; you might even say she was the seed of what was to become the set apart nation. I often wonder what the world would look like today if this would have come to fruition. If the Seed would have given way to the Royal Priesthood and Israel would have represented God and reclaimed the rest of the world bringing us back to Edenic life of walking with the Lord.
“And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, The LORD, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” Exodus 34:6-7
It has been said that behind every great man is a greater woman. It certainly seems that this was true in this story, and I can certainly say that about both of our wives! I believe that naturally mothers possess a closer natural connection to life and God as Exodus 34 describes Him. In many ways it seems like even though Eve may have taken an apple, men have in many ways continued and “LEAD” the march of the downward spiral of this earth. Today I want to celebrate motherhood and the innate compassion of the female. I believe Sarah towered over Abraham in the spiritual realms and today I believe in the upside-down kingdom; that even though women have been repressed in so many ways, they are the ones that continue to gently shepherd and disciple the church from the quiet – which is the preeminent calling of the kingdom. It is always interesting to me that most Men (even in an ultra-progressive world) won’t demand to not work 4o hours a week or more and stay home to shepherd children; yet in many ways Biblical women have demanded that their children be shepherded by their Godly principle rather than take a chance with handing them over to the discipleship of the world. It seems that a lot of the women in our lives have been given better eyes to see such as was embodied by the story of Sarah. Today, and I pray every day to come, we embrace, cherish, and hold high the great women of faith in our lives.
Eschet Chayil – This post is dedicated to our wives and the amazing women of TOV faith.
One of the most difficult stories in the Bible to understand is in Genesis 22 when God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. There is a lot going on here and we can’t address everything, but we are going to open the door for you. We are going to get out of our normal scholarly position in terms of citation and border on the dangerous waters of plagiarism in this article; (ok, not really, but as a couple of Th.D.’s we always prefer to give credit where do) -we strongly feel that this needs to be communicated as part of our ministry and the Kingdom. Too many people have dug theological and religious ditches over this text. Abraham’s Silence by J. Richard Middleton is a great read and Middleton is one of our all-time favorites. We diverge just slightly from his view (mostly in regard to his take on Hebrews and James and NT interpretations of this text) but can’t praise this amazing work enough, one of our favorite reads in years.
Introduction
Let’s start with, And He said, “Take your son, your favored one, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there” Genesis 22:2
We always need to read in context and it is important to read chapters 12-22 as a unit signifying grace, obedience, and trust tied to the character of God. Some call this the bookends of faith. In Hebrew the words translated as go forth are lech lekha and have turned into an idiom of covenant relationship returning to Edenic principle. God asks Abraham to cut ties with His past and put everything on Him. This is a picture or snapshot of what God later asks His entire nation to do and still asks us to do in Him today. Abraham serves as the archetype of this calling and faith. He asks us to die to ourselves, cut the ties of old and be remade completely sanctified in and through Jesus. This story is the story of the person who the Bible defines as having the most faith. Perhaps God is asking him to do something in crazy faith and that might be warranted as a picture of the one with the most faith of anyone in History. That is the traditional take on this, but perhaps there is even more to it. Yes, it’s difficult to leave everything – to cut loose from all those ties that brought us into the world and that give us our identity, safety, and community. But if we are to follow Him, the ties must be cut. Lech lekha is an idiom in of itself that signifies cutting a new covenant with the Lord and it is personal! Perhaps what God is asking has more to do with his character and desire to intimately tabernacle with us than anything else.
This is the story of the binding/offering of Isaac in Genesis 22. In Hebrew they call this the The Binding of Isaac (Hebrew: עֲקֵידַת יִצְחַק ʿAqēḏaṯ Yīṣḥaq), or simply “The Binding” (הָעֲקֵידָה hāʿAqēḏā). In the biblical narrative, God orders Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac at Moriah. As Abraham begins to comply, having bound Isaac to an altar, he is stopped by the Angel of the Lord; a ram appears and is slaughtered in Isaac’s stead, as God seemingly commends Abraham’s pious obedience to offer his son as a human sacrifice. The traditional interpretation is that Abraham passed the test because he didn’t withhold his son when God asked him to sacrifice him, but what if that was not the answer to the test?
There are various views on this subject, some are more traditional, some are not. Here are a few:
In The Binding of Isaac, Religious Murders & Kabbalah, Lippman Bodoff argues that Abraham never intended to actually sacrifice his son, and that he had faith that God had no intention that he do so. Rabbi Ari Kahn elaborates this view on the Orthodox Union website as follows:
Isaac’s death was never a possibility – not as far as Abraham was concerned, and not as far as God was concerned. God’s commandment to Abraham was very specific, and Abraham understood it very precisely: Isaac was to be “raised up as an offering,” and God would use the opportunity to teach humankind, once and for all, that human sacrifice, child sacrifice, is not acceptable. This is precisely how the sages of the Talmud (Taanit 4a) understood the Akedah. Citing the Prophet Jeremiah’s exhortation against child sacrifice (Chapter 19), they state unequivocally that such behavior “never crossed God’s mind,” referring specifically to the sacrificial slaughter of Isaac. Though readers of this parashah throughout the generations have been disturbed, even horrified, by the Akedah, there was no miscommunication between God and Abraham. The thought of actually killing Isaac never crossed their minds. [1]
Maimonides takes a very modern progressive or philosophical stance:
In The Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides argues that the story of the binding of Isaac contains two “great notions”. First, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac demonstrates the limit of humanity’s capability to both love and fear God. Second, because Abraham acted on a prophetic vision of what God had asked him to do, the story exemplifies how prophetic revelation has the same truth value as philosophical argument and thus carries equal certainty, notwithstanding the fact that it comes in a dream or vision. [2]
Progressive religious views such as this are often criticized as being less exegetical and based on your own human intellect; psychology in some cases is seen as trumping “ancient” perspectives that didn’t know better. We are weary of most of these views, but also want to best present what people are considering over this text.
There are also several traditional Jewish sources such as the book of Jubilees, a non-canonical book written in ancient Israel around 180 BCE, which credits Satan with the suggestion to Abraham to bind and sacrifice His son. Borrowing from the biblical book of Job, Jubilees rewrites the story of the binding of Isaac by inserting Satan into the tale, having him approach God (perhaps in a divine council style meeting) and raise the question of how faithful Abraham would be if God demanded that Abraham sacrifice his and Sarah’s only child.
There are also some non-traditional views to consider (much of which we do not usually align with), they might attribute Abraham’s decisions to possibly mental illness or perhaps becoming senile in old age. Some even go down the road as “crazy devotion” meaning that in Abraham’s mind he took what God was asking of him possibly too far. This also gets into conversations of both Abraham and Moses wondering if they left their wives in a similar form of reasoning; literally or figuratively “divorcing” them to be fully devoted to the Lord. These are extreme views but could be considered. Along these lines you also should be open to the idea that perhaps Abraham was not discerning the voice of God well. In this article we will consider Sarah being the one to possibly discern the voice and sight of the Lord “better” than Abraham. Did Abraham not discern the character of God and act on his own outside of God’s will? Did God have to intervene? Did that bring Sarah to separation from Abraham or possibly even death? Was Abraham obeying God like the pagans obeyed their gods? Perhaps the sacrifice was not God’s intention, but what Abraham thought. The Hebrew Grammar could support this view. When Abraham left, he seemed unsettled. This sounds like chaos not God’s order, it doesn’t embody the peace that the Lord usually instills. Much of the story would reiterate this idea, leaving before Sarah woke, cut wood, saddled the likely impatient donkeys, he was in a hurry.
As we believe these views and observations are at least to some degree valid and deserve consideration, we believe there is also a lot more going on than any one of these views.
I will summarize Dr. Stu Halpern’s synopsis saying, that readers, both ancient and modern, have struggled with how to justify such an awful sacrifice of Abraham, regardless of your theology, everyone has had to wrestle with the legacy, and lessons, of the heart-rendering near-slaughter of Isaac. Recent works like Rutgers professor James Goodman’s “But Where is the Lamb? Imagining the Story of Abraham and Isaac,” and Harvard professor Jon Levenson’s “Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,” have offered surveys of the tale’s interpretation over millennia (including modern examples from Bob Dylan, Elie Wiesel, and the Israeli writer A. B. Yehoshua) and emphasizing the ways that the opacity of the 19 biblical verses have allowed for wildly divergent understandings.
Expedition 44 wants you to consider better theological views and grow deeper and more intimate through your theology with God the Father. We invite you to dive into “the journey” with us.
The point
As John Walton often says, this story wasn’t written to us, but it is for us. What can we learn and take away? God wants us to wrestle with him (lament) in trials so that he can teach us His character. He doesn’t want just blind obedience but wants us to work through the hard things to know the deeper things of Him and His character. Deep intimate relationships often are forged in fire; thus, iron sharpens iron resulting in relationships that are much stronger. We encourage followers to dive deeper into a “Mars Hill” style of learning, that is largely what expedition 44 is embodied by and unto.
Our contention through study is that God wanted Abraham to contend/intercede for his son and learn that God is merciful. Later in the Biblical story we see God commissioning Moses to teach Israel about His character and His ways saying:
Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin (Exodus 34:6-7a)
And he wanted the same thing of Abraham earlier in the narrative:
“For I have chosen him [Abraham], so that he may teach his children and his household after him to walk the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice [God’s character], so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.” (Gen 18:19)
Now we believe that Abraham is the archetype of faith as he did believe God and was credited as righteous, but it seems that Abraham did not really know the character of God, and this affected the way he lived. He seemed to think God was like the false gods he worshipped in Ur (Babylon). He had mere fidelity and not a transformational understanding of God’s character…I know this is a bold statement but hear us out… (God can still work with and is pleased by mere fidelity but it is not where he wants to leave us). Often in the early Old Testament narratives we are reading what people thought of the gods and how they might be “appeased”. We believe in a Deuteronomy 32 worldview sense that these gods were fallen spiritual beings and often imitated God (as in the exodus story) and likely even tormented the people. So, this story of Abraham echoes the voice of Abraham trying to understand who God was. We still even use the phrase “God is for me not against me” which takes us back to these days where God’s people were trying to figure out why the “LORD OF LORDS” would want to have a personal relationship with them. Why would a God want to tabernacle or walk in intimacy with mere mortals? In many ways this is a reintroduction to God’s invitation for humanity to walk with Him as a recursive narrative throughout the Bible. God shows his continued covenant faithfulness despite humankind failing over and over. Perhaps this story of archetype faith could be more about failure than faith; showing us that perhaps it is failure that creates faith.
The backstory in context Genesis 12-22
Genesis 12 Abram is called out of Ur and God makes a covenant with Him
Genesis 15 Abram is promised a son
Genesis 16 Abram takes things into his own hands- sleeps with Hagar and conceives Ishmael
Genesis 17 Their names are changed to Abraham and Sarah and the covenant of circumcision is established.
Sodom and Gomorrah
Genesis 18 has an interesting exchange between Abraham and God where God reveals to Abraham that the outcry of Sodom has risen to Him and he was going down to check it out. Now in the text it never says that the Lord was intent on destroying it. Abraham over-interprets this when he starts bargaining with God assuming that this is what God is going to do anyways. (We often assume a lot about the Bible that has been spoon fed and might need to more transparently approach this text and others.)
Abraham does intercede for Sodom asking if God was going to destroy the righteous with the unrighteous and he challenges God despite merely being “dust and ashes” (which is interesting, because Job is the only other one to use this phrase… more on that later).
Contrary to how some have interpreted the text, this is not bartering or haggling. If it was like what we do with buying a house or a used car one would make an offer, and another would raise it and an agreement would come meeting in the middle. God is giving Abraham all that he is asking for each time.
His opening offer is 50 and God says sure. Then 45 and God says fine. Then he says 30 and God says yes. Then he says 20 and God agrees. Then his final offer is 10 and God says ten it is. And then he stops asking. Now the question is what was God trying to teach Abraham in this exchange? That righteousness and justice is infused with mercy. I think If Abraham asked for the town to be spared God would have done it. God was teaching Abraham about his mercy. What if he kept asking?
After this the angels go to Sodom and meet with Lot and tell him to flee to the hills Lot says it is too far and asks if he could go to the next town and asks for it to be spared for his sake and the request is granted (19:18-20). Lot asked for what Abraham did not.
Did Abraham love Isaac?
Next in the narrative we have the birth of Isaac. But right after this we have Sarah getting jealous over Ishmael. Some translations say he was “mocking”, some say he was “playing”, the Hebrew says he was “Isaac-ing”. Rhetorically it points to the fact that he was in the place of Isaac and I think that was likely in Abraham’s eyes too. So Sarah tells Abraham to send away Ishmael and Hagar and he does this.
Back in Genesis 17 God gives the covenant of circumcision and talks about the birth of Isaac through Sarah but immediately Abraham speaks up about Ishmael and asks God not to forget him (17:8), which God agrees to, while reiterating the promise about Isaac (17:19-21). And in Genesis 21 we see Abraham being very distressed about sending away his son. He seems to favor Ishmael.
In God’s test of Abraham in Genesis 22:2, we see Isaac being called Abraham’s “only son that he loves” but is this rhetorical? It can also be translated as “your remaining son” and I think the part of “whom you love” is God asking Abraham if he really loves him. God is once again trying to teach His character to Abraham of love for all image bearing humans and how God is not partial, especially about partiality between children. We’ll see more about this below…
The Aqedah
There is so much we could get into here, but I want to focus just on a few big picture things (read Abraham’s Silence by J. Richard Middleton).
Elohim or Yahweh?
The first thing to notice is that the name Yahweh is not used who is making the “command” or initiating the test. This is the only time that “God” talks to Abraham that the name “Yahweh” is not used, but “elohim” is. (12:1, 7 ; 13:14; 15:1, 4, 7; 17:1; 18:13, 17, 20, 26, 33 all use Yahweh when talking to Abraham). The writer of Jubilees picks up on this and attributes the request to sacrifice Isaac coming from Masteema (The Satan figure in Jubilees) and not Yahweh. The use of elohim here shows us that something interesting is going on and maybe the narrator is giving us a clue that this is not the intended command of Yahweh that displays His character but is a test to see if Abraham thinks God is like the other gods (also translated as elohim [spiritual being- good or evil] in the Bible, which can be singular or plural for may gods [false gods and their character]).
Also, why make a 3 day journey? Why not sacrifice Isaac right where they were? Maybe God wanted to give Abraham time to contemplate the request and discern God’s character along the way.
The Lord will provide, Isaac or The Lord will provide Isaac?
When Isaac asks about the sacrifice Abraham seems to have a Freudian slip when you read it in Hebrew and it could be translated as either “the Lord will provide a sacrifice” or that “Isaac is the sacrifice”.
Abraham does have faith that God will fulfill his promise as he tells the servants that he and the boy will return to them but Abraham is missing the point of the test.
The Angel’s response
The angel who interrupts Abraham’s sacrifice gives 2 speeches and the first one is about how he knows that Abraham “fears” the Lord. This word for fear is a contranymn and can have the meaning of respect but I think in the context it is more that Abraham is afraid of God. This was evidenced in not wanting to make God angry when he was bargaining for Sodom in chapter 18. Abraham may have an unhealthy fear of God, seeing Him like the gods of Ur, and this is keeping him from knowing God’s true character.
The second response is that Abraham did not withhold his son, his only (remaining) son. Notice that “whom you love” is not mentioned here as it was earlier with the same phrase. It seems that Abraham possibly did not love Isaac and this may prove it.
The next thing to notice is that God will still keep his promise because Abraham was obedient. He passed a test but not the right test in my opinion. This part of Abraham’s obedience is what Paul in Romans 4, the author of Hebrews, and James describe as the mere faith of Abraham… But God wants us to lament and talk to him and learn his character.
What if when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac Abraham responded: “I know your character God and you are not like the elohim of the nations who demand child sacrifice, you are a gracious and compassionate God who is full of mercy. So I plead with you not to ask me to do this. I cannot live with this, if you want to kill him then do it yourself. I plead your character to you!”
This is exactly what Moses did in the incident of the Golden calf on Mt. Sinai- He declared God’s character and God did not destroy Israel. This was also likely a test to see of Moses understood who God was. He passed the test, Abraham did not out of fear.
The Aftermath
After the Angel speaks twice Abraham goes down the mountain and returns with the servants, but Isaac does not return with them. Isaac and Abraham don’t speak or meet again in the narrative of Genesis. Isaac lives elsewhere.
Sarah also separates from Abraham and lives in another region and Abraham only goes to her to bury her later in the narrative.
Abraham lives in the same region as Hagar- maybe together
Also, God doesn’t speak to Abraham again in the narrative of the Bible after this. If we have an unhealthy fear of God does that cut off or at least hinder communication with God?
What if Abraham learned love and not favoritism and taught His family the true character of Yahweh? It seems like favoritism was passed down generation to generation: Abraham favoring Ishmael, Isaac favoring Esau, Jacob favoring Joseph.
Talking back to God
Did you realize that 60% or more of the Psalms are prayers “talking back” to God (lament)? Did you realize that Job was praised by God for “talking back” to Him even when his friends took the “fear” route (and they were told that they spoke wrongly about God!) Who are you battling? Who does the battle belong to? Maybe every battle should be given to Jesus.
We often hear that we should not talk back to God but this is not the message of the Bible. Talking behind God’s back about him makes him angry in scripture, but he wants us to come to him and talk face to face and lament our pain and trials. He wants to teach us who he really is and sometimes the test is where we learn this.
Conclusion
God wants us to talk to him and even protest in our trials- to call out for rescue and to call upon His character. He doesn’t need to be reminded about it but it’s for our benefit. It is how we pass the test. And he will correct us when we are wrong in love.
Remember that God does not command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. The verb “take” has the particle na attached to it. This effectively converts the verb to a request, not a command. It should be translated, “Please take.” Abraham is free to refuse without moral guilt. This cut is completely voluntary. It is a test of faith, not a command to sacrifice. Nevertheless, it is a confrontation with everything Abraham hopes for the future. God cut Abraham loose from the past a long time ago. Abraham had to learn to trust the Lord without his security blanket. Now God asks him to do the same thing with the future. “Cut away the security blanket – that son whom you believe will guarantee your destiny. Trust only Me and nothing else. Lech lekha.” This is the covenant I ask of my people – to be completely in.
Has God asked you to “go forth” from your past? Have you responded? You’ve walked with Him for a long time now, but perhaps your future still depends on something in your tangible reality. Now God is asking once more – cut it away to find covenant love that is unimaginable. Will you?
So How does this apply to Mothers’ day? Stay tuned for Part 2….
Dr. Ryan and Dr. Matt of Expedition 44
Lippman Bodoff (2005). The Binding of Isaac, Religious Murders & Kabbalah: Seeds of Jewish Extremism and Alienation?. Devora Publishing. ISBN 978-1-932687-53-8. OCLC 1282116298.
Maimonides. The Guide of the Perplexed, Vol. 2, Book III, Ch. 24. English translation by Shlomo Pines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.
According to the Book of Exodus, God commanded Moses to tell the Israelites to mark a lamb’s blood above their doors so that the Angel of Death would pass over them: they would not be touched by the tenth Plague of Egypt, the death of the firstborn. After this Plague, Pharaoh ordered the Israelites to leave, taking whatever they wanted, and asked Moses to bless him in the name of God. The passage goes on to state that the Passover sacrifice recalls the time when God “passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt”. [1]
Passover, also called Pesach in Biblical Hebrew: חַג הַפֶּסַח, is sometimes referred to as a “Pilgrimage of the Passing Over” because in ancient Hebraic custom everyone would travel to the place of the Tabernacle to be together for the week of observance. This was the first of seven festivals (of which 3 are pilgrimages) and the main gathering of Hebrew people choosing to leave their place in the world and come back into “complete” 24/7 followship of believers before the LORD, reminding them of whose they are and why they were created. Pesach starts on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan, which is considered the first month of the Hebrew year. The Rabbinical Jewish calendar is adjusted to align with the solar calendar in such a way that 15 Nisan always coincides with Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday. The Hebrew day starts and ends at sunset, so the holiday starts at sunset the day before. For example, in 2024, 15 Nisan coincides with Tuesday, April 23. Therefore, Pesach starts at sundown on Monday, April 22. Today as I write this, it is the first biblical “day” of Passover.
There are numerous special “feasts” in the Torah that God commands the people of Israel to keep. Each of the feasts encapsulate some of the most significant moments in Israel’s history. In this sense, the Biblical feast of Passover serves as the earliest and most evident example. Whenever God says, “Keep this feast as a memorial for you and your generations” (Exod 12:14), it is because the events signified are integral to Israel’s communal story and identity. [2] Perhaps we should still be keeping the feasts!
Pesach or Passover can also refer to the Passover sacrifice, the paschal lamb that was offered when the Temple in Jerusalem stood; to the Passover Seder, the ritual meal on Passover night; or to the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread. One of the Biblically-ordained three Pilgrimage Festivals, Passover is celebrated for seven days in Israel and eight days in the diaspora due to the principle of the yom tov sheni shel galuyot “the second festival day in the Diaspora”. In the Bible, the seven-day holiday is known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. [3]
The book of Acts shows how Jewish believers in Jesus continued to observe Passover in the years following the ascension but with the conviction that there was another meaning hidden in the feast, as the Apostle Paul writes, “Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7). After the Romans destroyed the Second Temple in 70 C.E., a series of Jewish insurrections led to the eventual dispersion of all Jews from Jerusalem in 135 C.E. A series of historical events took place for many years and by the eighth century the name “Easter” was introduced, appearing in the writings of Bede, a Northumbrian monk who wrote the Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Before this time, the Latin name had been Pascha, borrowed from the Greek Pascha (πάσχα), which itself stems from the Hebrew, Pesach (פסח). The Greek Orthodox Church still uses the name Pascha today, but “Easter” has become the preferred English term. In modern parlance, Easter and Passover represent two entirely separate holidays and faith traditions, despite their shared origins. As I have shared before, the specific celebration of Easter has some dark roots. (This is worth a read if you haven’t read it before.)
To be clear the Passover celebration in the Old Testament and much of the more modern aspects of what traditional Jews celebrate as Passover differ significantly. In other words, traditions observed during a modern-day Seder have their origins in later times and do not necessarily reflect the kind of Passover Jesus would have been familiar with. In fact, there is a longstanding debate whether the Last Supper itself was even a Passover meal (like the Synoptics say) or if it took place the evening before Passover (like the Gospel of John says). There are valid theories explaining how to reconcile the two accounts based upon the alternative dates that various sects used which I get into in the article previously mentioned, but the point is that the Gospels themselves contribute to our uncertainty regarding the type of Passover Jesus observed.
The feast of Passover today involves the eating of unleavened bread, bitter herbs, the recounting of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, and a host of other Jewish traditions which have developed over the centuries. Easter, on the other hand, recounts the story of Jesus’ resurrection, which Christians do not always relate to the Passover story. Sometimes the practice of Communion (also called the Lord’s Supper) is connected to Passover, because it was likely during Passover that Jesus raised the cup and broke the bread saying, “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:23-25), but it is rare that the story of Israel’s exodus is ever discussed during Communion. When Christians collapse both Easter and Communion into Passover, they lose a proper honoring of the uniqueness of all three events, and they also commit the historical error of assuming the Passover Jesus observed is identical to the Passover the Jewish community observes today. [4]
The sacrificial lamb of Passover becomes a key portion of the gospel narrative. You may never have realized that this element of Passover goes back to Abraham, the bazaar story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice His son. The purpose of this post isn’t to break down every part or idea related to Passover, but I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Abraham is the archetype of faith in the Bible. The man with more faith than anyone. When reading this story, we have to keep in mind that this is a real story but also serves as a recursive narrative pointing to Christ. It is in many ways a foreshadow of the unfathomable love that God has for us. Those familiar with the story will remember that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abraham went willingly—but Isaac lived. When Abraham lowered the knife, he was able to breathe again. God had provided a sacrifice which in turn offered a “new” life based on covenant living in and through God.
Today, we can breathe in that same peace that Abraham had. Our word for peace, shalom, can also mean “completeness.” [5] Is it possible that God always knew He would be the One to complete what Abraham started on the mountain by the giving of His own Son? Jesus, the one who died and was resurrected—completes this story.
Should a Christian celebrate Passover or Easter? Well, a traditional Jewish Passover takes on some post post-Biblical ideology that may confuse, and Easter is wrapped up in all kinds of pagan problems. The best answer is always to stay Biblical. Jews for Jesus says this well, we can celebrate the stories of what God has given us. In the same way that God completed the rescue work of Passover, we can complete our act of setting the table by bringing the one element that only we can bring. It’s the same element our ancestors learned in the desert and the same element Abraham brought up the mountain: an active trust in the God of Covenant relationship with us.
When my family invites Jesus to our Passover table, we have faith that he will come in and dine with us (Revelation 3:20). As we set our tables with each element and remember their meanings this Passover, may God help us with the final element of trust. That trust may be the key to true shalom, a shalom that will last long after your Passover feast has ended. [6]
Passover and Easter can remind us of whose we are and the coming out of the World back to being given completely to the ways of the LORD. I encourage you and your family to embrace the discussion and fellowship of the story of the Passover and the Lamb that brings life.
“Pesach” Archived November 30, 2014, at the Wayback Machine. Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary
People often ask what Expedition 44 is and I think I answer the question differently every time someone asks (you can read in its entirety what expedition 44 means here.) I believe the answer is similar to the way Paul expresses the attaining of knowledge through scripture leading to personal intimacy with God as the mystery of the Gospel in Colossians 1. As there isn’t just one way of expressing the deepness of the gospel; similarly, there isn’t simply one explanation of what Expedition 44 means. The simple phrase “expedition 44” is an idiom that represents the entire essence of the journey of sanctification to become truly set apart from the world and fully given unto the LORD. This expressions also points to everything that God gave and is reclaiming that is described as “TOV” or good.
In devout traditional and Messianic Judaism, for generations they have been committed to readings of the Bible daily as a way to train their children to hand down the precepts of holy living but also as a way to continually live wholly committed to the Lord each day. The word parashat (which means portion -a shortened form of Parashat HaShavua) describes the section of scripture that is to be read each day in traditional and messianic devout Judaic circles. In this way the Bible is perhaps mapped out such as a curriculum scope and sequence would be for teaching your family how to live for the LORD.
Today many traditional and Messianic Jews follow a daily reading in their personal lives, but their are still regular and daily public readings in many communities. “Torah Reading” often referred Biblically to the ceremony of removing the scroll (or scrolls) from the Torah ark, chanting the appropriate excerpt with special cantillation (trope), and returning the scroll(s) to the ark. It is also commonly called “laining” (which means “to read”).[1] Regular public reading of the Torah was introduced by Ezra the Scribe after the return of the Judean exiles from the Babylonian captivity (c. 537 BCE), as described in the Book of Nehemiah.[2] In the modern era, Orthodox and some Messianic Jews practice Torah reading according to a set procedure almost unchanged since the Talmudic era.[3]
Every once in a while, there is a pattern to which evangelical Christians get back into traditional OT or Jewish Hebraic customs. Everyone probably knows someone that has done this, and churches often lead similarly by doing seder dinners, or partaking in some of the other OT initiatives. There seems to be a regular debate in Evangelical Christianity as to whether Christians may benefit from such observance. For me it was attending Moody Bible Institute in the 1990’s when it was the center training for Jews for Jesus. I became aware of the reason the devotion to Torah pointed people towards the Lord in regular reminders of living holy. In this way the law might be seen as a guidepost to keep people on tract until the Messiah would reconcile all things through His atoning work and once again offer intimacy to unblemished relationships to walk with the father as had been lost in Eden. This path is called sanctification and leads to a renewed eschatological heaven and earth and re-instated Eden like kingdom both in this life and into the next. But it isn’t so much about the distant future as it is about living out each and every day for the Lord, the here and the now of devotion unto the LORD.
Today some wonder if we as modern Christians would be better off spiritually in devotion unto the LORD returning to the way of the Torah; I and many others feel that particularly evangelical Western Christianity would seem to be far better off returning to the prescription of Torah in seeking devotion to God than simply believing that we no longer need to exercise or are bound to any of the Old Testament ways of pursuing sanctification. In many ways we have failed to live out our NT calling as those given to a holy royal priesthood far worse than the ancient Israelites that God handed over to exile that didn’t have the revelation of the Messiah or the New Testament.
We are supposed to have spiritually surpassed the ancient vestiges of old, but in reality, have fallen far from them.
To be clear, once Jesus came and commissioned us to be disciples, the mission was to leave everything of the world on the beach and completely follow Him. This was a returning to our original intent in the garden to walk (halach) daily in intimacy with the Lord. Our daily devotion or (work) would be to keep and cultivate what had been given. Today through Christ we are commissioned back to the original Edenic calling as a set apart royal priesthood whose mission should be to walk in devotion unto the Lord keeping and cultivating or reclaiming what was lost or defiled and giving it new life and purpose in the Jesus Kingdom. But some have deducted that we don’t simply not meet this description, but we even seem “less devout” than those under the Law that were handed over to their sinful premonitions and experienced exile. Where does that “put us” 2000 years later?
Expedition 44 is about not only returning to perhaps practicing some of the ancient ways to get “back on track”, but to then fulfill our New Exodus calling to return to an “ALL IN” or “SETAPART” way of I Peter 1:9 commissioned living as those claiming and living out the life that Jesus offered to us as disciples.
This year the Parashat Emor is the 31st weekly Torah portion in the annual Jewish cycle of Torah reading or to be read on 8 May 2024 / 10 Iyyar 5784. As I shared earlier, parashat simply means portion and “Emor” means to say or speak over. You hear parts of this in evangelical Christianity (particularly in charismatic circles) today by speaking into or over someone as a statement of faith or belief. This is sometimes associated with the “word of faith” movement. There are many modern suggestions to this such as the recent song by Charity Gayle – I Speak Jesus. We often speak “Jesus” into or over others believing the words of the Spirit will manifest. Last week at TOV we did this over our children.
The “emor” text is found most specifically in Leviticus 21, but there are many texts that also support this such as Ezekiel 44. (The 44 is not a coincidence but that’s a longer explanation). In Hebrew a complete text is often defined by the first word such as in the Shema – “hear”… this text is similarly is “speak”… emor el-haKohenim benei Aharon, “say to the priests, the sons of Aaron…” The text then goes on to give instruction on several things such as service in the tabernacle, prohibition of pagan nations, and lots of specific kehen (priestly) requirements. The charge of Leviticus 21 is for the Kohen (priests) to lead the way for a nation of people that are to be set apart from the world unto the LORD.
To be specific, much of the text is specifically towards Aaron’s descendants. There are three “classes” within the structure of Jewish society: the Kohen, the Levi and the Israelite. The Kohanim are the physical descendants of Aaron and would offer sacrifices and one of which would function as the high priest. Contrary to most people’s understanding, the other descendants of Levi were assigned to other roles of the temple service (maintenance related – call them the custodians of the temple, notice the foreshadow of Christ type humility, -they served the people). The Kohanim, then, are a subset of the Tribe of Levi.
Some have wondered why the Kohanim were “set apart” in this way from the other Levites. The Bible doesn’t really give us the answer, but oral and rabbinical tradition says they refused to contribute gold or partake in the sin of the Golden Calf and were so zealous for the LORD that they slew 3,000 of the instigators of the rebellion. (The golden calf likely started off as being a pedestal inviting Yahweh to ascend to as a throne but eventually became worshipped by the people and likely some of the Levitival priests instead of Yahweh Himself. This is what actually became the sin, not the building of the calf.) Previously, it was also said that the Levites continued the practice of circumcision while in Egypt, when the other tribes of Israel had abandoned the practice. Perhaps after the golden calf account the kohanim were set apart as those that were undefiled and would “make a way” or “make right” or represent the people before Yahweh. They functioned as the remnant that represented God to the people and the people to God.
That was actually the calling to “all Israel”, but they failed immediately and thus only a small percentage lived out the calling. You may remember God in Deuteronomy 9:13-14, God saying to Moses, “Let me alone that I may destroy them.” Israel failed God very early in the story and continued to do so over and over. Today according to I Peter we are all charged with this royal calling of priesthood. That’s what x44 is all about.
Kiddush HaShem (“sanctifying the Name,”) means that we honor the Name of the LORD by giving up our lives to and for Him. Christ is our example of complete sacrificial humility painting the picture of how then we are asked to be image bearers as living sacrifices. Kiddush HaShem (“sanctifying the Name,”) means that we honor the Name of the LORD by giving up our lives. We die to ourselves that we may receive full life in Jesus.
To the ancient Hebrew, when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were faced with the fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar’s design, they did not presume that the LORD would perform a miracle for them, but fully expected to give up their lives for the sake of kiddush HaShem in Daniel 3; but God does something more, He offers life where death was presumed. This foreshadows the NT when Jesus leads us in a “new exodus” to give up our lives (lay them down) and accept new life in and through Him. This new life takes us back and reinstates us to the original priestly calling of Eden. To be a “living sacrifice” wholly and completely given to the Lord.
The second part of the parashah lists the eight main mo’edim which are the appointed times of the Jewish calendar where families are “set apart” in what is referred to as mikra’ei kodesh or “times in which holiness is proclaimed” (Lev. 23:2). These are the yamim tovim, in English we simply refer to these as Jewish Holidays.
The Sabbath – weekly observance and day of rest where your family comes together with Yahweh.
Pesach also called “Passover.”
Unleavened Bread.
Firstfruits also called Reishit Katzir.
Shavuot also called “Pentecost” or “Weeks.”
Yom Teru’ah also called “Rosh Hashanah.”
Yom Kippur also called the “Day of Atonement.”
Sukkot also called “Tabernacles” or “Booths.”
These were intended to bring your family out of the world “back” to being set apart before the LORD. Can you imagine life as a Christian today if we set aside from Friday night until Saturday night to simply do nothing but promote Jesus in our families? And then strategically planned 7 “vacations” a year with the sole plan of living each day as best we can in accordance to what God has given us. Christianity might be viewed differently. But the reality of this is that we were even called to more than that in the Great Commission of Jesus to discipleship.
When Christ calls disciples, the intention wasn’t just to be called back to God once a week and 7 times a year; but was even more, to never return to the world. You don’t need 7 times a year or even a special day weekly to be reminded to get out of the world if you never return to the world. Therefore, the new exodus was to completely be set apart, more than what the law called for! So fast forward to Jesus and the great commission to be and make disciples – modern Western Christianity seems to be waaaay off the mark. Therefore, some would assert that we as 21st century Christians may need to return to the ancient ways (first fruits thinking of the law) to get back on track and then eventually we can live completely set apart as Jesus’ disciples into the new royal priesthood calling reclaiming what was lost into the New Kingdom.
If this article sounds like a journey you would like to begin pursuing, truly making the Yahweh the LORD of your life and finding the course of discipleship with Him; we have a community for you. The community of TOV. A community devoted to seeking what it means to live wholly given to Jesus – ALLIN.
“Leyenen”. Yiddish Word of the Week. Leyenen is the popular term for the public reading of sections of the Torah and megiles […] on Shabes and holidays. […] a designated member of the community (the leyener) who would have to spend time memorising the proper way to read the text
“8”, Nehemiah, Tanakh, Mechon Mamre.
^ The exceptions being that most communities (except for Yemenites) ceased in the early Middle Ages to translate the Torah reading into Aramaic as was done in Talmudic times. In addition, in Talmudic times, the one receiving an Aliyah would read his own portion, but most communities today have an institution of a Baal keriah who reads on behalf of all of those receiving Aliyot.
I remember one time when I was young, my father took me to hear a great lecturer on the Shroud of Turin. The gentlemen that was giving the lecture had a Ph.D. in something and came off as very intelligent. It was one of the first times in my young life I ever heard someone speak with this kind of wisdom or understanding. I remember thinking, “maybe someday.” Well perhaps I have arrived, perhaps not. Some people know that the Biblical names we say in English aren’t really accurate. They aren’t the way they would have been pronounced in Hebrew or Greek they are the English versions of the words. For instance, in this lecture the scholar kept saying, “Yeshayahu.” I asked my dad what that meant and He whispered, “Hebrew for Isaiah.” Little did I know this would end up turning into a significant part of my life path.
Biblical Hebrew (or classical Hebrew) was an ancient language that some say emerged in the 10th century B.C (or 1,000 B.C.) and perhaps earlier. Some believe it was the primary language given by God. During the Roman Period Biblical Hebrew “evolved” beyond recognition. The Jewish Diaspora (or spreading of the Jews) changed the pronunciations to be unrecognizable in many ways. Languages got mixed & new dialects were made. Eventually Biblical Hebrew got so minced that it was unrecognizable and basically “died.” But it’s even more complicated, Jeff Benner addresses the issue like this,
“The Hebrew texts of the Bible were originally written with only the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which only represent consonantal sounds. As no vowel sounds were originally included in the text, they had to be memorized. As you can imagine with the Diaspora and passing on of the language orally in through different dialect and slang things became very difficult to know exactly what words were what. Around the 10th Century AD, a group of Jewish scribes called Masorites, created a system of dots and dashes, called nikkudot or vowel pointings and added these to the hebrew text. These vowel pointings served to supply the vowel sounds to the text in order to codify the pronunciation. The Masorites also included notes in the margins of the text. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew manuscript known to exist is the Masoretic text called the Aleppo Codex which was written in 826 A.D. This text is considered the most authoritative Hebrew manuscript and all future editions are based on this text.”
But the problem therein lies that by 826 A.D. most scholars would believe we had already lost the core of what Biblical Hebrew once was. Are you starting to see the issues?
Hebrew experienced a revival in the 19th century – and there was a push to bring back the Hebrew language, what we know was “Modern Hebrew” came as a result.
This was part of the Zionist Movement, or National Revival Movement to create a state/home for Jews and was an instrumental part of dispensationalism. During this movement, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, a lexicographer (dictionary writer/editor), prepared the first modern Hebrew dictionary. With the new dictionary, people started using Hebrew again and speaking 1 language. Because of the influence of European languages (remember, the Jewish Diaspora and evolving mentioned above?), Hebrew changed as a language. By the medieval period, we know of three main oral reading traditions: Babylonian, Palestinian, and Tiberian. Numerous medieval biblical manuscripts have survived representing these oral reading traditions with different vocalization sign systems.
(SOURCE: A comprehensive description of Babylonian vocalization is presented by Yisrael Yeivin The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization -Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985).
Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are different. For instance, the basic word for “I” changed, and words from outside languages came into modern Hebrew, essentially, a Biblical Hebrew “speaker” wouldn’t understand a Modern one and vice versa. In this way a someone that knows modern Hebrew often cannot really easily read the Hebrew Bible. They are “that” different. Because of these things and several others, there is a good bit of “acceptable” linguistic variation. Biblical Hebrew has been hard to track for many reasons.
Mark Ward sheds some light into this, “In New Testament times, the disciples were noted as Galileans, probably indeed because of their accents. What was the “right” way back then to pronounce Kiriath Jearim? And was it FIL-uh-steen or fuh-LISS-teen—or something else entirely? Who can know? I’m not saying we can’t know anything about ancient pronunciation of Hebrew and Greek words; I’m saying it cannot serve as the standard for how you pronounce names in the Bible today. Take that impossible pressure off of you.”
We simply “do not know” and because of this, some scholars have gone to great lengths to try to show why one pronunciation or another may be better, but we are so far removed and there are so many complications to this argument that instead of the scholarly community getting particular about all the various possible pronunciations, for the most part, there is a loose grace that comes with the ground. In Hebrew thought, there is never really an absolute “correct” way of seeing something anyway. The ONLY correct “view” is God’s view, and no one has those exact eyes.
So now, you will better understand how TOV specifically gets interesting.
Most people reading this know that Tov is the Biblical Hebrew word that describes God’s handiwork as “good” [tov]. The Hebrew word tov would best be translated as the word “functional” in terms of God’s order (algorithm may be a better modern word to describe what God does here in regard to devotion) in contrast to this word is the Hebrew word “ra”. These two words, tov and ra are used for the tree of the knowledge of “good” and “evil”. While “ra” is often translated as evil it is best translated as “dysfunctional” or “chaotic”. In the Bible we see narratives such as good-evil, tov-ra, order-disorder, function-disfunction, peace-chaos and so on and so forth, and they all describe the contrast of everything that becomes rival to the ways of the Lord.
Tov becomes a one word Idiom to describe all things as intended by God with the idea of a journey to being what you were fully designed to be from the eyes of God both in a sense of your person and the community that represents God.
In Ancient or Paleo Hebrew each character makes a picture that has a loose description of its intention. The above from “strongs” will help you understand this ancient Hebraic idea.
You might notice if you look up the word “good” that different sources or commentators handle meanings and even the pronunciation of the word slightly differently. This just goes back to the idea above that we really do not know what the original word exactly sounded like and many different scholars have suggested differences of opinion and research.
Transliteration takes the letters from one language (in this case, Hebrew) and puts them into another while trying to preserve pronunciation as best as possible. This presents challenges when languages like Hebrew have different sounds than English and have changed immensely over time. For example, one of the sounds in Hebrew that’s hard to carry over in English is the kh sound. It appears in words like chesed (steadfast love, lovingkindness) and sounds like phlegm coming out the back of the throat.
You may see the word TOV written by some commentators as “tobe” where as others may suggest “towb” or somethings different. Sometimes this is a variation in vocabulary and tense but most often it isn’t. In Hebrew the V, W, and B English sounds are very close.
____________________
HOW TO PRONOUNCE TOV: So specifically, when we pronounce TOV, scholars can agree on a few things; in Hebrew you emphasize a strong syllable, and in this word, it is at the beginning. T and O are strong and for the most part are pronounced like “TOE” in English. (However, this is complicated because in modern Hebrew this O often can take on an “A” sound. You might be familiar with this when people say, Mozel TAV with a long A sound rather than Mozel TOV with a short O sound.) Then when you get to the end of the word TOV (particularly in Biblical Hebrew), the emphasis almost fades to nothing. You end with a nearly slurred WVB sound in English. Therefore, TOwvb may be the closest thing (transliteration) you would understand in English (but don’t give to much emphasis to any of the “w” “v” or “b” sound, they should softly fade together.) It comes off as a strong “Toe” with a fading wvb sound. All that said, TAV, TOWB, TOBE, TOVE, TOV and likely other ways of saying it, are all “acceptable” especially when spoken in English! As I alluded to above, only God knows.
In the evangelical world we are often put “in charge” of planning, directing, or running programs with little if any shepherding. If you haven’t ever been “thrown into the ring,” it’s just a matter of time. Sometimes this is called the moment of sink or swim. In one regard, this is good for maturing Christian. We gotta learn to fly (reliance on the spirit) at some point and we likely won’t get there if we never simply “JUMP!” On the other hand, if this is the only option, it could leave scars. The better plan is to disciple those “under” you to walk with you, learn by your example, and be guided and coached before being asked to fly. They need a shepherd and whether you realize it or not, this is the pre-eminent call to every believer. That we each might disciple one, two, three, twelve, and perhaps eventually 70 under our tutelage. This is the biblical plan of multiplicity and needs to be taken seriously and done well. But fear not, if you were just thrown into the ring being asked to plan and run some kind of an event such as a small group, a bible study, a prayer meeting, or worship service; this will help you to do it with excellence.
Start with prayer. Get a prayer team, an accountability partner, those that you are hoping will join you in the endeavor and be devoted each day to prayer. Think and pray strategically before you begin the rest of the points below.
Two is better than one. Invite a partner. Being the “BIG DOG” isn’t Biblical.
Consider your primary goal as shepherding others. How can you use this “event” to truly demonstrate Jesus and bring others closer to Him?
Think big. Be a visionary. What does it look like to do this exceedingly well for Jesus. What is the measure of success? What are the why’s and the how’s of the plan. What are your strengths and what do you need help with? What does great fruit look like? How can this influence and shape similar events to come?
Consider mapping it out on paper. Brainstorm either in a meeting or by something shareable and get feedback. Look for red flags, big wins, and things you haven’t considered. Pray for the eyes of others. When you enlist the help of others it builds spiritual alliances and surrounds you with success partners. Let your success all be the success of others.
Consider the ACTS (Adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication) of prayer.
Make a goal and schedule and stick to it. Keep yourself and your team on target communicating every day with the major goal of shepherding and encouraging. Consider encouraging text messages, gifts, links to inspiration, and whatever it takes to help prepare your team for what you see. Learn to encourage even when your frustrated with someone.
Consider appointing leaders of potential situations. If you are considering breaking up into small groups, consider asking and empowering those you ask before the event. Let them prepare, help them prepare, and paint big pictures. Walk with them. Communicate to the group what their role is. Consider doing some research for them for whatever you’re asking them to do to or at least ignite that fire. Perhaps send them studies or YouTube links on the content area.
Consider safety measures and precautions.
Always consider personal testimony. Let them know the time restraints, ask them to prepare, and possibly even meet them and listen to what they want to share and help coach them.
When something is out of your expertise, find articles, videos, or in person help from the experts.
If you have subgroups for the event, regularly check in with them as you carefully and positively encourage them towards best measures of planning and communication. Lead by example.
Be ready to shepherd people from start to finish and in a spiritual sense remember that “performance” or “skill” isn’t everything. There are a lot of other dynamics that will go into building a team.
Think about ways to use other people’s gifts in the periphery. Think outside the box, and perhaps even advertise asking how people may want to contribute. Always encourage quality giving, serving, and interaction.
Build, use, and look for opportunities to shepherd. If you aren’t usually in this position, it may present an opportunity that you don’t usually have to impact someone. What are those moments and who are the people?
Be strategic and intentional. Don’t use most of your energy doing something that isn’t part of the big picture. Recruit people as much as you can but be sensitive to the perceptions you may be sending to each person and consider aspects you may not be prepared for or ready for. But also invite the spirit to do what is out of your understanding and expertise. Don’t put anyone or anything in a box.
Think personal “face to face” communication and phone calls over text messaging and email; but realize they all have a place in positive planning and communication.
Everyone should be impacted with a feeling of clarity and confidence in exactly what they need to do, how they need to do it, and when it needs to be done. Reiterate this with follow up in writing communication.
Help each individual understand their role within the team and be open to what else they may contribute. Learn to interpret everything as positive and don’t allow yourself to ever be offended. Shepherd everything and learn to be shepherded by anything and anyone. Learn from the least of these. Don’t allow pride to slip in, pray against it, and appoint someone to watch and coach you helping identify issues that need more of your attention. Find someone that doesn’t only have your back but has your eyes.
Inspire creativity and cooperation amongst a team and those outside of the team or on other teams.
Take individual ideas and refine them to actionable solutions. Iron sharpens iron but help your team understand that great conversation at times will sound like a debate. Encourage but shepherd. If someone says something that seems off, be an agent of edification and restate what they said from a positive perspective.
Clarify collective goals and deadlines so that each person sees their role in achieving them.
Create and shepherd great meetings: Define the Meeting Objectives, Create an Agenda + Send Calendar Invites, Create a Safe Space for Collaboration, Strategically Choose Attendees + Appoint Important Roles, Use Best Practices to Stay on Track, End With Clear Actions, Owners, and Timelines.
Respect peoples times and energy but also set the tone for kingdom giving of peoples best: Use positive reinforcement to recognize achievements rather than magnifying shortcomings. Never publicly reprimand a team person in front of the team. Avoid blaming any specific team or individual for a problem. Research shows that this destroys trust and confidence in a leader. Instead, opt for curiosity and stay solution-oriented. Ask for feedback. Asking for feedback increases people’s trust in you and their leaders. Lead by humility and sacrifice.
Avoid side discussion and keep people engaged. Start with a story or study that pints to Biblical understanding towards your where you are shepherding.
If you are married don’t meet one on one with someone of the opposite sex, always meet in three or more with mixed gender meetings.
Learn to always shepherd, especially difficult people. Always walk by Matthew 18 and never let the sun go down between you or a team member without coming together in love. Work harder on understanding other people’s perspectives and learning their love languages. Consider the relationship over the need to be “right.” Take a Philippians 2 perspective of humility. Don’t allow yourself to be mad or frustrated.
I recently posted a photo of Will on social media holding a picture he painted of the power wagon I and our family built a couple months ago. I think a few people picked up on this being more significant than just another great image Will painted (because he certainly has several of those.) Over the last two months our family has been talking about the Hebrew word “TOV” and recently decided to have weekly range nights centered around the expression of this word.
Several months ago, when I was finishing the power wagon, a very good friend of mine, Paul Turnbaugh, who is also my two older boys’ art teacher at Faith Christian School, decided to use some images I took of the build as models for a student art painting project. He painted a sample that was ridiculously good in a couple hours and then shepherded the students to paint something similar. Most of the kids finished the project in a day or two but Will spent a lot longer.
Several people have asked me about the theme behind the Power wagon and I haven’t shared much. This power wagon is a one-of-a-kind build and generated a lot of questions on the Facebook post that I didn’t answer. I am a pretty transparent person, but there is some measure of personal intimacy tied up in this one. The build is called the 49’r because the power wagon that was “restored” is a 1949. But the term 49’r has become an idiom better known to describe the gold rush of 100 years earlier. I have taught history for a large part of my life and the main goal of studying history is so that you can learn from the past to make progress towards the future. 49’r is a term that brings thoughts of not only mining for gold, but coal mining, traveling into uncharted territory, being ready or preparing for the worst, hunting for food, and all of the basic tenets of survival that came with the American westward expansion. Life wasn’t easy in that era, and well in many ways, when I was building this, I was feeling similar tribulations in my own life. I have always found when I need to spend a significant amount of time in thought and prayer I either need to go sit on a deerstand or build a rock crawler, in this season I did both. You can see some signs of these hardships in the build from things like the simple single barrel shotgun affixed to the tailgate storage area, the hand-crafted trapping knife I made on the front dash, the shroud protruding from the grill, even the fact that it has a rear seat under the canvas so that my family can join me for the journey takes on the idea of how the west was won. But not everything was won, some was lost, and this build also is a mosaic of that and perhaps some feelings of what has happened recently in my life, namely deciding to leave the church we have been involved with for the last 10 years. There are several hints to this, but the biggest one is the custom cast buffalo as a grill ornament. Westward expansion came out a terrible cost that personified both the best and worst in America. Much was learned. The buffalo in many ways also signifies the spiritual picture of what I have endured. Buffalos are strong resilient creatures but when pressured can become an unreconcilable force; yet in the end are agents of spiritual sacrifice at the same time. Indians believed that God saw through the eyes of the buffalo.
You might already know this, but the buffalo has long been an icon associated with strength, abundance, gratitude, and provision. The buffalo symbolizes a deep respect for nature and is considered a guiding “spirit” for many things that lead to “good.” In fact, the buffalo is a symbol of what God provided as good and man “used” as a necessary evil. Since the beginning of time there has been wrestling match between what God created and gave to humankind as “good” which is the Hebrew word “tov,” and what the world has done to these things which is the Hebrew word “ra” and often associated with the ways of the world or Evil. As this is not a post on Critical Race Theory, what we did to the Indians, or the various ways we are destroying God’s good creation, those things are difficult for a Christian to ignore. We are given a free will and told by God to follow our inner spirit or desire to return to the devotion of Eden he intended us for – and offers us a plan to do that. On the other hand, the world, the fallen spiritual powers, Satan or whatever other “evil” you may believe in, is constantly tearing at you to become like “it” which is contrary to the Lord. The plan for humankind is to reclaim their original design and/or calling and with Christ in us, operating as living sacrifices unto Him, we might be the physical manifestation of everything that is of and from God – that which is Tov.
Westward expansion was a picture of this struggle. We were given what was and is a pristine picture of what the Lord is offering to us. If you have ever been to a remote part of the Rocky Mountains or Alaska at the base of a mountain stream or glacial lake with the stars beaming down on you at night you know exactly what I am referring to. The buffalo was also a picture of this to those that first lived in the land. The buffalo was accepted as a gift from God and literally every part of the animal was used, and nothing was wasted, because it was understood that because the buffalo were giving themselves willingly (God made them easy to hunt and plentiful), that gift should be fully appreciated and even treated as a sacred experience. My boys and I are avid deer hunters and take on these same values today. In similar ways, the Bible uses a good deal of typology, themes, and motives to describe the essence of His plan for us.
Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ) is a Biblical Hebrew word that refers to the aspects of sentience, and human beings and other animals. [1] The primary meaning of the term is ‘the breath of life’ instinct in the nostrils of all living beings, and by extension ‘life’, ‘person’ or ‘very self’. There is no term in English that correctly corresponds to nephesh, most English translations use the word “soul” but that doesn’t nearly encapsulate the full meaning. [2] The Nephesh is better considered as the spiritual connection that is present in living beings that connects them to their creator. An example of this can be seen with the Hebrew word rûach (“breath”, “wind,” or “spirit”) it describes a part of mankind that is immaterial, like one’s mind, emotions, will, intellect, personality, and conscience, as in Job 7:11 and various other places. Essentially every living being is created as “good -TOV” with a nephesh that connects them spiritually to their creator. Even after the fall we read this over and over, nearly 754 times telling us about our desire to naturally be “of” the Lord.
If your following the expedition 44 series on original sin you will recognize that this flies directly in the face of Calvinist Theology which says the doctrine of original sin removes our ability or desire for Good and overwhelms every being with a desire for bad or the Hebrew word ra (evil.) This reformed doctrine is described as Total Depravity and is the first pillar of Calvinism which I do not subscribe to and unfortunately believe that most people have been influenced more by this doctrine that what the Bible would clearly teach about who we are and what inclinations we have. The doctrine has become engrained into the evangelical mind as a truth of the Bible and has had some devastating effects on Christianity.
I believe that we have a desire (Hebrew yetzer) to either choose to live for the lord or to live by the ways of the world and that every decision determines whose we are. Joshua proclaimed “choose this day whom you will Serve” and Moses made a similar statement in Deuteronomy 30. This is described in Hebrew thinking as the yetzer hatov vs. the yetzer hara. It essentially teaches that you aren’t born with a natural desire to be sinful but that you choose which way you will go with every cognitive decision.
It certainly doesn’t mean that we aren’t greatly influenced by the sin of this world but believe that God has overcome through Jesus once and for all and that power is enough to be completely free and redeemed in who you are and living with each decision pointed towards the joy and devotion of life in Him. Are you going to be of God and be tov, or of the world and give into the ra.
My boys helped build the 49’r. This might surprise many of you, but I have built many of these kinds of vehicles (over 30) and I am not attached to any of them. However, the experience that comes with them I will never forget. One of the reasons it is named 49’r is because when I would come home from working on it my face was covered in dirt and grease and I looked like I had been mining. My kids helped me regularly with cutting, welding, cleaning, sanding, and traveling for parts. These memories are the “spirit” that can’t be lost and the basis for many Jesus-discussions and moments as we remember that era of life together.
When my grandpa passed away at 98 years old, I didn’t receive or inherit anything from him. But a few years before my grandpa had given me an old stall shovel and within a week of bringing it home the 100 year old wooden handle broke. My uncle reprimanded me for actually using the shovel, but I know my grandpa gave it to me to be to be used! I replaced the handle with a piece of DOM tubing and am confident this shovel will outlast me now. I am sure it made my grandpa smile as he used to rebuild everything instead of just buying a new one. For years I felt “bitter” about not receiving any kind of inheritance at his funeral, but over time I gained something much more valuable than anything material I may have been given. It forced me to dig deep and embrace my memories and what I did receive from my grandpa.
I grew up in a great spiritual family. My mom and dad were instrumental in giving me the tools to own my faith and were great examples of it. But my father died when I was young. Many years before that, when I was just a kid, I started spending the first few weeks of every summer with my grandpa. Those were some of my favorite childhood memories. I would get up at 4am and work till mid-morning then go to their home and swim the rest of the day. He was a retired heavy machinery contractor that never really retired. My summers consisted of all the things little boys love: shooting guns unsupervised, drinking from a garden hose or even the creek, rebuilding engines, digging random holes just for fun with the excavator, digging ponds, welding, fishing, driving the old Massey tractor up and down the banks of the river that flowed through the farm and mowing hay in the 100-degree Indiana summers. After my dad passed, I made it a point to visit my grandfather in Indiana several times a year with our family. To everyone’s surprise he bought a brand-new dodge truck back in 1991 and I have fond memories of it. My grandpa loved fires in the fireplace, so my wife and I made it a labor of love to take the old dodge out to get firewood whenever we visited. My young boys would beg to take it for drive. They grew up driving in the bed of that truck on hot summer days to get ice cream in town. Sometimes when we arrived it had a camper slid into the back which meant we were going fishing. The old dodge became a mosaic of who grandpa was. This power wagon has very much come with remembering my grandfather and what he meant to me and reaffirming some of the same memories with my own boys. Spiritually I have also dug deep to remember the theological conversations I loved with my father that have obviously greatly impacted my life.
I often think about the memories and life skills that come out of these “projects” in life. My uncle recently told me he was selling my grandpas old truck to someone else. For a split second the hurt of not receiving anything of my grandpas returned to me; but I soon was overcome by amazing memories that meant far more than the physical truck. I didn’t need the material item to remember what my grandpa gave me in life. Today as I think of what God gave us as “good – Tov” I think of the things that I want my boys to have in life and it isn’t “material things.” I am often reminded by not having anything material from my grandfather that I don’t need them, that I have so much more than that. Interesting that Jesus didn’t have anything either. That is the same way God asks us to think about Tov and Ra and our time on this earth. Don’t worry about the stuff of the earth (often associated with ra). Don’t get too wrapped up in a 40 our work week that you forget the more important aspects of life. Dwell on the experiences that He gives us both here and now and what is to come. In many ways, the buffalo on the grill of the Power Wagon reminds us that we should always be moving forward towards the spirit of tov. To not lose sight over what really matters.
When my good friend Paul assigned this project Will didn’t treat it like a regular school assignment. He treated it like the gift that it was to him – all that was TOV. He painted the spirit of the buffalo in the wind behind it to signify that it isn’t just the material truck, but the entire spirit that personified this project in his mind (and his teacher Paul knew this.) It represented all that came with it. Memories of deer hunting after we worked on the truck for a couple hours, power washing the patina to get it just right after his Saturday morning soccer games, talking about how we should build it, learning how to lay down a weld and being surprised that dad was going to allow him to put some beads down on such an amazing project. He is already talking about learning to drive “stick” in it.
According to Merriam Webster, “Tov is from the Hebrew word for “good”, but with a fuller intent which implies something which fulfills the purpose for which it was created. First used where God pronounced what He created was ‘good’; also, in describing the tree of the knowledge of ‘good’ (tov) and evil (ra).”
I agree with the dictionary, but at the same time understand that the dictionary often misses the deeper under tones of the Bible. The word tov would best be translated with the word “functional” in regard to the order that God created. God calls forth the seeds he has embedded in creation, creation brings forth those seeds with the seeds of future life in them, and God calls this process that postures towards him as TOV.
What God wants is for us to image Him. It means capable of, presently engaged in the process of, and destined for, completely fulfilling the Divine purpose for which it was created.
In short, Tov represents the desire to completely live in affirmation of your reclaimed image of God to a broken (ra) world in this lifetime and whatever may come thereafter. To replace the chaos of this fallen world with the order that God has given to be tov, fully devoted to Him.
1. Horst Balz (ed.), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (3 Volume Set), 1993
2. A.B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament, Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1904/25, p.200-201
Calvinism and/or reformed theology (which some consider having traits of Calvinism but not all of it) has never been appealing to me. So this article may be better deemed, something like, “my issues with reformed theology” or “Why I am not reformed in my theology.” My father was in opposition to this kind of theology, the closest I ever got to it was when he begrudgingly allowed me to attend Moody Bible Insititute. Despite their ever-growing reformed bend, he supported my decision to attend. My dad was confident that he had equipped me with the foundational tools to explore the Bible for myself, and I will admit – he had given me a natural advantage of recognizing the slant of reformed theology from an early age. Many of my close friends are reformed and I first want to preface this article by saying my reformed and Calvinist friends are my brothers and sisters in Christ and are part of a God–honoring movement which has preached Christ, detested sin, acknowledged that God rules on His sovereign throne and proclaimed the glorious doctrine of justification by grace through faith according to the Scriptures. I am even sometimes jealous of how they have convinced the world that much of what their view teaches (PSA, Ransom and Debt theories of atonement, ETC [eternal conscious torment], and predestination to name a few) as simply what the Bible teaches. For instance, if you are using the Romans Road or some step plan of salvation to tell someone what they need to do to be saved, then you likely have taken on some Calvinistic ideology without even knowing it. The average Christian American naturally believes some reformed theology as part of their faith likely because they haven’t really ever dug into the “why and how” or had someone that shepherded them to openly seeing an alternate Biblical theology. Many casual church attenders and seminary students alike have not fully explored the ins and outs of reformed thinking or the alternatives to it. However, some have and have determined that this is their best interpretation. I have a good friend from Moody that is reformed that is extremely well educated and knows the ins and outs of theology and has a very good view of reformed theology. Personally, I gravitate towards either taking the “whole none yards” of Calvinism or none of it in terms of views that hold more water. The picking and choosing of some points but not others within Calvinism make the least sense to me, which frankly is where most American evangelical churches land.
Some have even left the faith because these reformed ways of thinking didn’t add up, and they thought this was their only option. Those that have left, lacked a better understanding of the Scriptures and theology (and therefore God Himself) & chose to walk away completely thinking it was their only option. There are many repercussions to thinking like a Calvinist and most of them don’t look a lot like Jesus. Calvinists have a reputation for wanting to fight in their theology. Sometimes this is phrased as “standing strong”, or “fighting for what they believe,” but many view Reformed theology as the traditional understanding of Christianity. I always like to remind people that my Free Will early church view is far older than theirs and would therefore be the more traditional or “conservative” view. At any rate, I invite you to peacefully consider perhaps a better theological view either way. I always want to encourage you to take your time. Major decisions in life and faith don’t and shouldn’t happen easily or quickly. Let the spirit move you to an unbiased truth towards whatever direction you land based on the spirit’s conviction and the word of the Lord.
I say this peacefully, but quite transparently, quite frankly if my choice was to believe in the God and doctrine of Calvinism or walk away, I am afraid I also may have chosen to walk away. Calvinism just doesn’t add up in my opinion and I will tell you why. Please do not take this as a personal rant against reformed theology. I just want to share from a perspective of spending the better part of my life into the exploration of the Bible and why I land on the free will side rather than the reformed side.
If this teaching is new to you, please dig in and give yourself a prayerful unbiased approach to seeking the truth before the Lord. Big decisions often need time and a receptive spirit. If you are hoping to change someone’s mind by sharing this article, be gentle, be open to their exploration, and shepherd their concerns and discussion. Also be open to their biblical point of view! It may take some time and the character of Jesus displayed in you.
I have many issues with Reformed and Calvinistic thinking. The problems run deep, seeping into nearly every biblical consideration, but my major issue looms in the idea that we are utterly depraved, and completely incapable beings, stuck in the miry muck to continually fail over and over again likes pigs in defilement (which I believe was literally and figurately Jesus’ message to us.) Thinking this way leads to doom and gloom ideology sending the trajectory of the spiritually reclaimed catapulting over and over again back into the wrong direction. Rather than claiming renewed life in Jesus and living in freedom and walking a road that leads to joy; reformed thinking requires you to keep desiring a deliverance over and over and never being capable of walking the Edenic life Jesus has planned for us on the earth and into the next spiritually. Reformed Theology essentially leaves you believing you are unable to claim what Jesus offers to you. Reformed thinking needs to keep adjusting what seems to be the clear and simple path of freedom and redemption to have to be continually re-examined in a faulty lens resulting in theological gymnastics. In short, my biggest issue with reformed thinking is that it doesn’t follow the path to freedom that is such a large biblical motif in the lens of the Bible from start to finish. It doesn’t fit with the nature of God to perpetually transform you into His image. God didn’t design us to remain in sin and defilement but gave us a plan to return to the beautiful Edenic life today and on a path to sanctification that leads to a completely renewed spiritual being and recreated heaven and earth. Jesus asks us to walk away from the depravity and claim new life in Him. The Tov life.
In the Bible the Exodus story becomes a recursive biblical theme. In this motif the foreshadow of deliverance was the marking of the doors and passing of death that led way to a cognitive free will choice to leave the former life and walk towards God. It was an individual making a choice by their free will to step out of bondage and ask for life. That offering of the gift of grace shows true in both the original exodus story, many exodus motifs throughout the pages of the Bible, and in the New Testament through Jesus in the “new exodus.” This is the reciprocal circle of grace. God offers the option to choose life, the people then responded by showing their actions to accept that plan for them (which was blood on the doorpost in the original story.) God, then accepting this, delivers them. From there they are asked by God to follow the Torah in devotion and be “all in” following the Lord and no longer living in the ways of their past. The completed circle is for God’s people to follow in complete devotion, which is viewed as a theocracy. But as we know, in the OT the Israelites chose man over God time and time again. They made repeated cognitive decisions that gave in to the yetzer ha ra rather than yetzer tov (Hebrew words describing the inclination towards desires, one evil, the other good.) Israels story shows that they needed deliverance over and over again, but God’s message to them was that he had already delivered them and now they needed to simply complete the reciprocal act of grace and live by His precepts and claim the image bearing role of the royal priesthood they were created for. Today this seems to be a microcosm of Free will thinking verses reformed theology. Free will believers claim Jesus and live redeemed lives believing they are capable and can walk in Jesus here and now in a beautiful picture of sanctification. Reformed theology seems to wallow in the muck of Israel not understanding the gift given, not believing that they were intended to fully bear the image of God both in this world and the next… they get hung up thinking the voices in their head and even the Bible itself tells them they can’t, they aren’t able. They seem very much to represent the religious hierarchy of Judaism that Jesus constantly was at odds with saying repeatedly that we can’t live in this kind of sanctification. Yet, Jesus over and over taught to not live in our mess; we are asked to live each day walking one step closer to the master. I believe we are all called to take the next step towards the master in discipleship answering the amazing gift, the circular dance of reciprocal grace given to us by Him and expected that we lead others as the hands and feet of Jesus in this same beautiful calling. In Jesus time and today the goal of claiming deliverance and coming to Him through devotion was described as leaving everything on the beach and completely walking in the dust of the rabbi… Life was not simply a repeated deliverance experience that you were stuck in or needed to happen over and over again to be redeemed. Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of His spirit was enough once and for all, embrace it and never look back, run with Jesus! Claim your freedom and be all in, completely devoted to this life, here and now set apart to live an incredible sanctified life that truly bears the image of Jesus.
The message to you hasn’t changed…
See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. “But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish.
DEUTERONOMY 30
NOTE: Unfortunately, most of this information has been collected by me in the form of everything from photocopies, notes for and from videos, sloppy quotes from videos and lectures, and who knows what else over the course of the last 20 years. Most of this message is in my head in near photographic form. This is likely the least scholarly post you will ever read from me in terms of giving credit where credit is due and possibly even nearing the line of plagiarism, although I certainly would not do that intentionally and have done my best to at least mention people’s names that I believe the content originated from. But please accept any apologies, and if you recognize anything as quoted, please let me know and I would gladly give credit. As I will do my best to keep this concise, I could likely write book upon book on several of the subjects at hand; this article will simply seek to establish a launching ground and give a basic premise for thought and theology.
Drryan@gocovenant.com
Here are some current “reformed” views you may be familiar with: (You also might be a Calvinist if you agree with most of what the following views represent.)
COVENANT: The Reformed tradition is largely represented (but not limited to) the Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Reformed Baptist denominations. Covenant theology (also known as covenantalism, federal theology, or federalism) is reformed. Just to be clear when I or any of my colleagues talk about keeping God’s covenants, we are NOT associating with reformed covenant theology. In the same regard, CTS (Covenant Theological Seminary) in general, also is on the other spectrum, or opposite of reformed theology, being of “Free Will” choice rather than that of a reformed covenant view. To this regard, institutions like CTS are holding to the word “covenant” for what it purely means in the bible and not what “man’s theologies” have turned it into. It is sort of like claiming the rainbow for the Biblical meaning, not what modern America has tried to make it represent. Unfortunately, there isn’t one word to describe the views that those hold that are on the other side or opposite of reformed views. Some would allude that anyone opposite of election theology would be on the “Free Will” side of theology, but again there just isn’t a singular good name for those that are “not in agreement with” reformed theology. I often say, “I have not been reformed” in my theology, meaning I side with the way Christians thought before and after Christ for thousands of years before the reformation changed their minds.
The majority of “spirit led” (charismatic) congregations are not reformed. You have probably picked up on this, but as you will find below, most of the tenets of reformed theology are viewed as “quenching the spirit” by the Pentecostal or charismatic bodies. However, this isn’t always the case, although I might argue that it should be in a better lens of theology. If you believe in the complete moving of the spirit, you are naturally going to lean towards a theology that is more in tune with a dynamic view of God’s workings. Some would say that Reformed theology limits the understanding of the spirit of God. This gets into a conversation on dispensationalism which also tends to most often tie into reformed ways of thinking.
The five solae of reformed theology are: (ANY “CHRIST ALONE” PHRASE IS A CALVINISTIC THING)
Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”): The Bible alone is our highest authority.
Sola Fide (“faith alone”): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
Sola Gratia (“grace alone”): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
Solus Christus (“Christ alone”): Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King.
Soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”): We live for the glory of God alone.
Systematic Theology (as adverse to Biblical Theology)
Systematic theology and biblical theology are two ways of studying the teachings of the Bible. Systematic theology tends to be reformed and organizes everything the Bible says on topics such as sin, Christ, and government. It seeks to present the entire scriptural teaching on certain specific truths, or doctrines, one at a time. Biblical theology is a way of reading the Bible as one story in narrative form and tends to be free will and spirit led. It seeks to understand the progressive unfolding of God’s special revelation throughout history, and how Scripture’s many human authors tell one story—about Christ—by one divine author.
POPULAR REFORMED INDIVIDUALS
Alistair Begg
John Calvin
D.A. Carson
Francis Chan
Matt Chandler
Ray Comfort
Jonathan Edwards
Louie Giglio
Wayne Grudem
Tim Keller
Erwin Lutzer
John MacArthur
J.I. Packer
John Piper
David Platt
R.C. Sproul
Charles Spurgeon
B.B. Warfield
Rick Warren
Paul Washer
James White
Augustine
Martin Luther
Joni Eareckson Tada
George Whitefield
Warren Wiersbe
To the same regard, here are some organizations and websites that you might be familiar with that also are regarded to have a Calvinistic bend to them:
The Gospel Coalition
9 Marks
Lifeway
Desiring God
Ligonier
Got Questions
Christianity.com (Found plenty of Calvinist articles and authors here)
Theopedia (as clearly seen in their post on free-will)
gty.org (John MacArthur’s Grace To You, a.k.a. “Grace To Few”)
Focus on the Family
Challies.com (Tim Challies)
Josh Harris (joshharris.com)
Bible.org
Crossway.org
carm.org (Matt Slick)
compellingtruth.org
moodymedia.org (Erwin Lutzer)
TULIP:
During the reformation people started believing that the human soul* was corrupt at or before birth and therefore tried to systematically make sense out of it (thus systematic theology emerged). As a result, these men had to develop a whole system of theology in order to attempt to be consistent. In order to make this system of beliefs easier to remember, they called it “TULIP”. Each letter of this word stands for one of their doctrines. The following are the basic teachings of “TULIP.” To be clear, all (or each and every one) of the points are Calvinism. As I have mentioned, some people that consider themselves to be reformed may only hold to some of these points. Personally, I would affirm that all of it is Calvinism, and I would not agree with any of the points as I will get to. Unfortunately, this article will not be exhaustive but seek as more of an introduction to thinking better. I will give you a starting place for Biblical consideration.
Most evangelical Christians would not consider themselves to be “Calvinists.” In many circles of Christianity this is a bad word. Yet TULIP shows the heart of Calvinistic thinking, and most evangelicals actually believe a good deal of it to be true. I agree that you can hold to part of these views (as I do) or maybe even believe a couple of them to be mostly true, but when you start agreeing with half of them or most of the facets of them you have to ask the questions, are you actually a Calvinist? Tongue and cheek I often say, “you might be a Calvinist if…” you agree with more than one of these tenets. There are 2-point Calvinists and 5-point Calvinists and they are both, or are all “Calvinists.” I would also argue that if your 1 point is the T which is the foundation to Calvinism, then yes, you are still a Calvinist! Therefore, reformed theology is the difference of essentially saying we only adhere to the parts of Calvinism that we want to.
* *the Hebrew word Nephesh is the best term, as the word soul has taken on a lot of platonic meanings that weren’t in sight biblically
Before I jump into my issues with Tulip, the acrostic that summarizes a particularly reformed understanding of salvation, I realize that I would likely not summarize their beliefs to their satisfaction, so please take a moment to read their own explanation of it so that you can truly approach this from an unbiased perspective. Here is a post from Ligonier which is a reformed Herald. Also, to their defense TULIP is intended to be directed towards the work of salvation, some of my issues with it below will no doubt venture past soteriology.
Total Depravity
“T” stands for Total Hereditary Depravity. This is the core belief of the TULIP doctrine. This is the belief that the human soul is born corrupt. As soon as a baby is conceived and/or born, according to this doctrine, it is in sin and in need of a redeemer. There are many arguments that show positively that the human soul is not sinful at birth but only when it commits sin. First of all, notice that God gives man his soul or Nephesh (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Zechariah 12:1). Can or would God give a man an evil soul? This would contradict James 1:17 which says that every good and perfect gift comes from God. God does not bring forth evil (Matthew 7:18). Furthermore, why would Jesus have said that the one had to become like a little child to enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:1-3). Was he saying that one has to become sinful and depraved in order to go to heaven? Of course not!
Unconditional Election
This doctrine says that since man is born in such a sinful state, there is nothing that an individual can do in order to be saved. They say that salvation is solely the work of God, not man. After all, we are saved by grace and not works (Romans 3:24). Furthermore, they say that God chooses those who will be saved and those who will be lost. God’s Word is never going to contradict itself. Having said that; there are too many places that show that man must play a part in his salvation. Peter preached on Pentecost that those present must “save themselves” (Acts 2:40). Further, the Lord said that only those who “do” the will of the Father will see the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21). The Bible teaches that we are going to be judged by our “works” on the last day (2 Corinthians 5:10; John 12:48; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). If this Unconditional Election were true, there would not need to be a judgment, for God has already decided. We would essentially all be created as robots; how would that give glory to God? Finally, this doctrine makes God unjust because he would be condemning some having never given them a chance to serve him, even if they desired to do so.
Limited Atonement
Unconditional Election eventually led to the doctrine of Limited Atonement (one problem requiring a solution for another – thus what I mean by theological gymnastics). This is our “L” in the TULIP doctrine. This is simply the belief that Christ only died for those select few whom God had chosen. Thus, the atonement for sins given by his death was “limited”. First, the Bible says that Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6). Limited Atonement says that He only died for the Godly or perhaps that Christ died also for elect sinners that God would then make Godly. John 3:16 tells us that God so loved the “world”. God did not only love a select few but all men (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). The words “FOR ALL” occur many times describing the gospel and all means all.
Irresistible Grace
“I” stands for the next doctrine to spring up called Irresistible Grace. This is the belief that the elect (those chosen by God) are going to be saved whether they desire to be or not. Joshua told us that we have the ability to choose whom we will serve (Joshua 24:15). Peter told those on Pentecost to save themselves (Acts 2:40). Irresistible grace is tractor beam Christianity.
Perseverance of the Saints
Finally, we come to the “P” which is Perseverance of the Saints. We often hear this doctrine called, “Once saved, always saved”. The Scriptures teach that man has the ability to choose whom he will serve and that his eternal soul will be judged on that choice. No one who believes in “Once saved, always saved” would deny that Paul was one of the “elect”. Yet when we read 1 Corinthians 9:27 we find that he constantly “worked” to stay in that saved condition. We can also look to Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8) as one who was saved and then lost. Judas was another. He was given the ability to do miracles like the rest of the disciples (Matthew 10:1).
BREAKING DOWN THE ISSUES
ORIGINAL SIN
I am well aware that my issues with Calvinism go much deeper than simply the tulip. For instance, I don’t “only” have a problem with Total Depravity but also would not even embrace a reformed view of what is called simply “original sin.” We have a several part youtube series on this here. “Original Sin” is the doctrine which teaches that because of Adam and Eve’s sin we are all born guilty before God and that we inherit their guilt from birth. Sometimes we may refer to this as Original Guilt. This is also called Augustinian Anthropology or Augustinian Original Sin. In other word’s everything gets pinned on Adam. I believe the bible clearly teaches we are all responsible to God for our own actions and in some part, the communal action of the Christ’s bride the church.
With Original Sin and Total Depravity come some other “ditches” that you’re going to have to figure out if you go that way…
The immaculate conception of Mary was created as a work around to hold up original sin (how could Jesus be sinless if Mary had Original Sin/Guilt?)
The first 400 years of the Church did not believe this.
There is zero evidence that Judaism ever believed this. Modern Messianic Jews do not believe this.
The Eastern Orthodox church along with some Protestant denominations never adopted this view (Anabaptist and some Arminian Methodists and some Wesleyans).
Augustine was the inventor of this doctrine in the 5th century and much of it was due to his importation of his pagan background into Christianity and lack of the knowledge of the Greek language.
NONE OF THESE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AFFIRMED THIS: Clement, the Didache, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, or Justin Martyr
Augustine and Original Sin -The doctrine came into the church through Augustine of Hippo (396-440 CE) and the doctrine was originally called Concupiscence.
Augustine could only read Latin, not Greek, or Hebrew.
Augustine came to original sin by reading Romans 5:12 in a bad Latin translation.
The original Greek would read: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned”
Yet his Latin translation said, “all have sinned in Him (Adam)”. Where the Greek says that death has spread to all because all (each) have sinned.
Concupiscence
Concupiscence, according to Augustine, relates to Adam’s sin being transferred through sexual reproduction.
Its root definition is a base sexual desire. We get our word concubine from this.
He believed that through this all men are born with their will, body, and mind corrupt, and this is transmitted sexually. They inherited the sin through the sexual act leading to birth.
He taught that Jesus had to be born of a virgin because he connected this to the sexual act. Therefore, the virgin birth spared Jesus from a sinful nature.
I affirm the virgin birth but Isaiah said this is a “SIGN” and has nothing to do with original sin.
God’s first command to humans to be fruitful and multiply. If sex is in itself a sinful act as reformed theology says than God would be commanding humans to sin.
We also get the doctrine of infant depravity from this, and Pastors today even keep this bad doctrine going:
John MacArthur said, “At no point is a man’s depravity more manifest than in the procreative act…by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked.”
Augustine of Hippo said, “The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their frames; the minds of infants are far from innocent.”
INFANT BAPTISM – babies began being baptized to wash away the guilt of original sin
Critical Race Theory
If Original sin is true and sin is transferrable and imputable no Christian should have an issue with Critical Race Theory which states that you are guilty of the original sins of America (Racism and slavery) even though you were not born yet and had no choice in your race. Yet CRT says that those born in certain demographics must atone for the sins of previous generations and they are just as guilty as the original offenders.
This is the same logic as the Doctrine of Original Sin in the Bible so if one affirms Original Sin you should also affirm CRT as it follows the same logic (yet I don’t know of any Reformed church that would align with CRT.)
Pro Life (Abortion issue)
In Original Sin even children are born guilty and under the wrath of God. Most Christians (reformed or not) are against abortion and are Pro-Life. But according to Original Sin God’s hatred is against these babies at birth (possibly unless or until baptized). His Grace can’t cover or won’t them or anyone else. We often talk about babies being innocent but according to original sin they are actually guilty and worthy of death according to this theology. The reformed disconnect then, is that if you believe babies are born as evil or against God, then ending their fetal life doesn’t pose as many problems for you (which is a problem.)
My first and last paragraph hit largely on this, but put simply, reformed theology says man is incapable of living as consumed by freedom, redemption, reconciliation, and joy in living for Jesus in their sanctification journey on this earth. It is a very limited view of Jesus’ work imo, they are looking largely for sanctification to in the life to come, which is often referred to as escapism. Calvin’s theology begins with the doctrine of “Total Depravity,” this idea of “original sin” is a theology of man and natively foreign to Scripture. Instead, Scripture teaches that sin is the result of willful disobedience to God (Hebrews 10:26; 1 John 3:4). Calvinism allows man to say, “Sin is not my fault. It is my ‘sinful nature.’” However, Scripture teaches that sin is our fault. Scripture teaches that man has freewill and is able to choose whom he will serve (Joshua 24:15) and that this devotion is what leads to intimacy with the father. Receive life and never turn back! Every opportunity can be a decision to honor the Lord with your heart mind and Nephesh.
CALVINISM & ARMINIASM
Now let’s be clear about something. All Christians believe in God’s sovereignty, providence, and the biblical term predestination. These are not concepts unique to Calvinism. Calvinism is a particular interpretation of them. There are obviously other interpretations, such as myself and the free will church. Armenians, for example, also believe in God’s sovereignty, providence and predestination. But they have a different interpretation of these biblical concepts than Calvinism’s. Arminian Theology and Calvinism share many similarities that I would oppose. The spiritual danger of TULIP Calvinism is in believing that God is not loving enough, not good enough, to save all. Do you really think that God’s character would allow himself having the ability to choose who will and won’t be saved, that it has nothing to do with Free will? Could I love a God who could rescue everyone but chose not to? Typical Armenians don’t believe that God is powerful enough, or sovereign enough, to save all. TULIP Calvinists don’t believe that God is good enough, or loving enough, to save all. Both are problems that I cannot “assume”take on or assume” in my understanding of God.
I Am a Christian
John Calvin was a man. Christians follow Jesus, isn’t a doctrine named after a man rival to the basic idea of following Jesus? Paul admonished the church in Corinth for following men, when they were saying, “I follow Paul” or, “I follow Apollos” (1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:4). Even if I agreed with Calvin on every theological point, which I do not, I still could not describe myself as a “Calvinist” because I want to follow Christ, and Him alone (to use their own words!) Similar to what Paul asked the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:13), I would ask those who are Calvinists, “Was [Calvin] crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of [Calvin]? I have a similar hangup to following “Calvin” as I would to a church that elevates the pastor to nearly “god” status. There isn’t a place for it in a Jesus only Theology.
The Church Was Predestined & WHY PRAY
“Predestined” is the Biblical word proorizó and takes on an idea of predetermination or something that is marked out beforehand. It is used in the New Testament six times in Acts 4:28, Romans 8:29&30, I Corinthians 2:7, and Ephesians 1:5&11 and every time the text doesn’t give us many clues as to exactly what it really means. Hermeneutically when this happens we need to seek what the rest of the bible and other similar words may have to say on the subject and perhaps even take a look at what the intended audience understood the text to have meant (such as extra biblical sources which were commentaries of the day). In this case, luckily the Old Testament is our “torah” for the New and has several allusions to what happened with God’s intentions at the beginning. Psalm 139:16 gives us more but is also one of the Calvinist proof texts, so let’s see what it says. I often find that most of reformed theology is based on English and Latin translations, not the language of the original manuscripts. Unfortunately, a “simple reading of the English” often doesn’t convey the best image of the original language. Perhaps our modern day or classic (unfortunately reformed) understanding of predestination needs to be adjusted. Does God know everything you will do before you are born, before you make a single choice? Does He know all men’s choices from eternity past? Does he actually cause every little thing that happens? And if He does (which is what Calvinism believes), and He never needs self-adjustment, then in what sense can we claim that we have free will—or, for that matter, how could anyone, including God, ever hold us accountable for any of our actions if they are all predestined? I could write 10 pages on this one.
In this case (as with most), the original language in my opinion settles the dispute in all the passages that I know of, nut lets take a hard look at the one the Calvinist community tends to emphasize. The literal Hebrew is, “in Your book all of them written the days formed [when] none of them.” The NASB reads, “the days that were ordained for me,” the words “for me” do not appear in Hebrew they are inserted into the English translation. Was this just simply trying to make it read better or is this inserted theology? I would say the later.
The first verb is a Ni’fal imperfect, usually designating an incomplete or reflexive passive voice. In other words, the writing isn’t finished. It’s still going on. That’s quite a bit different than the idea that it is all written in the book before you were born. This is just basic Hebrew, nothing complex. Thats one reason why any traditional Jew thinks the reformed idea of predestination is preposterous.
The second verb (“ordained”) also betrays theological bent (it isn’t an acceptable interpretation by any law of hermeneutic that I know of.) The verb is a Pu’al perfect, that is, an intensive completed action. We know the root, yāṣar, but it takes a theological assumption (you have to want to go this way to align with other preconceived doctrine – again theological gymnastics) to translate it as “ordained.” The basic meaning of this root is “to form,” “to fashion” in synonymous parallelism with bārāʾ “create.” It describes the function of the divine Potter forming man and beasts from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7–8, 19). It occurs in association with bārāʾ “create” and ʿāśâ “make” in passages that refer to the creation of the universe (Isa 45:18), the earth itself (Jer 33:2), and the natural phenomena (Amos 4:13; Ps 95:5). See also Ps 33:15; 74:17; 94:9; Jer 10:16; 51:19; Zech 12:1). Most of this can be found in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, one of my all-time favorite references and a great example that not everything that comes from seemingly reformed organizations is reformed, (i.e. Moody Press). (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (396). Chicago: Moody Press.)
The word also occurs in the sense of God’s framing or devising something in his mind. It is used of his preordained purposes (II Kgs 19:25; Isa 37:26; 46:11; Ps 139:16) as well as his current plans (Jer 18:11).
If the prepositional phrase, “for me,” isn’t in the original text, then how could this verse be enlisted as a proof of God’s foreordination of all human choices? Why couldn’t it simply be read that God knows what He plans to do before any human days are numbered? The translator’s addition of “for me” alters that entire direction of the text. I’ll get to the New Testament but let me first address something that connects here.
PRAYER: We see many times in the Bible that God in his omniscience can change his directions and does. (Moses pleading with God not to destroy Israel, Abraham saving Lot, Jonah and Ninevah etc…) His nature doesn’t change but His actions may which is ironically what make Him truly omnipotent. He is influenced by the very heart of man. His ability to adapt to the pleads of humanity is essentially His response to our devotion to Him in prayer. Predestination by Biblical definition seems to best mean there is an overall plan and God is dynamic enough to accomplish that plan despite the course of action and free will through his church (and perhaps individuals).
In other words, if you prescribe to Calvinism, why pray? If you believe God is immovable in every way, then why would you pray in terms of supplication? Yet we know the Bible speaks over and over of the ability to “ask God.”IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN PRAYER (at least the facets of supplicational prayer), IT IS GOING TO BE HARD TO BE A CALVINIST!
But lets get back to the Calvinistic idea of predestination. In this way of thinking, every individual has been predestined for salvation or condemnation. Man has nothing to do with receiving salvation; it is completely up to God whether an individual spends eternity in heaven or whatever your view of hell might be. It is basically a cosmic lottery! In the first chapter of Ephesians and the eighth chapter of Romans, Paul speaks of the idea of being “predestined.” Thus, the idea of predestination is a biblical concept. However, as I argue above, Calvin has confused the biblical definition. Paul wrote that God chose “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4) to save a group of people (the church). Nowhere in Scripture do we read the Calvinistic idea that individuals were predestined for salvation or condemnation. Paul wrote, “he predestined us” (1:5) and, “we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined” (1:11). Concerning predestination, Paul always speaks in the plural (a group), not singular (an individual). Second, if grace were “irresistible” it would make evangelism unnecessary. Why would missionaries need to go into all the world and preach the gospel (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16), if it was God who irresistibly and miraculously converted men? Why would Paul say, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). If Paul’s preaching and example had nothing to do with the conversion of souls, someone ought to have told Paul that!
Christians Can Fall From Grace
The Calvinists teach the doctrine of “Once Saved Always Saved.” To me, it seems that by simply logically considering the mass amounts of individuals that have seemingly met the biblical description of “one that is saved” yet later meet the description of one who isn’t, is overwhelming. The idea that if someone truly becomes a Christian, it is impossible for him to fall from grace seems nearly erroneous in real life, how could that possibly be? Yet, if you were to ask any Calvinist, “Can a person fall from grace?” Surely, the Calvinist would answer with a resounding, “No! There is no way a person can fall from grace.” Which baffles me, in light simple scriptures such as Galatians 5:4, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” Jesus Himself taught that one could fall from grace, “If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned” (John 15:6). Seems really cut and dry, if you are wrestling with this subject your real wrestling match is with the doctrine of Calvinism not the Bible!
If you take a once saved always saved view in light of the seemingly loads of people that leave the faith you have two options. Either God’s tractor beam miraculously draws them back to faith at some point before judgment. This could be entertained by an “apostle’s creed” understanding that Jesus while in the grave preached to degenerates giving them a final opportunity to accept Him. Perhaps this is a foreshadow to the New Covenant as well; but the difference is they didn’t have Jesus in the OT and in the NT we do. The other way this could work in a Calvinistic view is taking a higher level of the definition of salvation. I routinely say Judging salvation isn’t a line we should be drawing, that is for God and God alone. But that also would possibly address this matter. For instance, Jesus calls his followers all to become disciples and we get the idea that only about 70 of them existed at His death. This is defining a disciple by those that left everything at the beach (family included) and fully followed him. By this thinking, few will be saved, but it might settle the dispute of how some claim to be saved and fall away. In some reformed circles this influences theology that continually questions your salvation leading to multiple altar calls and baptisms, revivals and more. The are you “sure you are sure” way of thinking.
DRAWING
Calvinists love to talk about God drawing people to Him in defense of predestination. I affirm that Christ draws people to Him through His spirit, but some clearly refuse it. The Father’s “drawing” out of the world’s bondage by deliverance (which leads to salvation) and the devil’s stealing (which leads to damnation) are cosmic factors that work in conjunction with, but not in control of, the human volition. In other words, if a human heart is willing to submit, the Father will lead them to a saving faith relationship with Christ. The Father “draws” people (or not) in response to their hearts. Sometimes it seems like this is a continual process and sometimes the scripture seems to imply a limited window. It comes back to the problem of reformed theology and free will; reform theology essentially believes that no one truly makes their own decisions, that every decision was made for you by a supreme being. No one can refuse something that wasn’t ever offered to them.
IT (CALVINISM) IMPEDES DEEPER DISCIPLESHIP
If I am predetermined from the beginning, i.e.. part of the cosmic lottery, essentially a robot made to follow God or not, and nothing I think or will matters, (in fact, logically to this regard I am not really capable of even choosing…) Then why would I try to be a disciple? Yet Jesus frames discipleship as the pre-imminent call or reason to follow him. He continually asks us to make this choice to “FOLLOW HIM.” Calvinism minimizes the need to shepherd and disciple. This seems against Jesus’ teachings not in alignment with Jesus and His calling of us.
IN CONCLUSION
Greg Boyd really jumps into this in a reaction to a “hard to read it’s so bad” John Piper article.
Calvinism therefore teaches that God SPECIFICALLY WILLS every evil event in history as well as each person who will suffer eternally in hell (ETC.)
Calvinism teaches that God ordains every single evil thing that people do IN SUCH A WAY that God is all-holy for ordaining these evil acts while the people who do the evil acts God ordained them to do are sinful for doing them. This is the classic problem with evil.
Calvinism teaches that God has a “sovereign will” that ordains and delights in evil and a “moral will” that is revolted by the evil his “sovereign will” ordains. This is why I and others have claimed that God’s “moral will” must hate God’s “sovereign will” if Calvinism is in fact true.
Calvinism seems contrary to the nature of God and his plan for us. It seems rival, not in unison with God’s plan of sanctification offered to all who choose to enter into this allegiant relationship. Where does this leave you? Joshua asked the “over and over again” depraved Israelites to make a choice. Are you going to live in freedom or be stuck in your old ways? “Choose today” he said. God continues to obliterate the lines of disunity created by the severing what sin has caused. Calvinists want to redraw these lines.
Choosing to be stuck in your depravity is a choice that shows disunity resulting from the selfish, sinful choices freely chosen by man and not given to you by God. This “crutch” has been claimed as an excuse and perhaps the main issue for cultural and religious divisions since Eden. The challenge of Jesus’ teachings came to those who believed in the righteousness of their own spiritual heritage, that they can bear the Image of God and live in hope, reconciliation and freedom from their past, they are recreated holy ones and live in the power and Spirit of Jesus Himself.
I get that living this way was likely easier in the first century as a believer that was immersed in the “leave it at the beach” definition and living in a “circle the wagons” Jesus community. But the fact is the Amercian way of working 40 hours a week and acceptance of worldly bondage hasn’t changed the words of Jesus or the Bible. Have the ways of the world caused you to be in a continual spiritual dismal seemingly needing to be “rescued” over and over again? We often are what we allow, make more Godly decisions and choose to be more aligned with Jesus than the ways of this world.
The intrinsic beauty of any relationship is found in the heartfelt decision of a person in their nephesh to choose to be invested in that “Jesus” relationship. Of all the beauty found in the Garden of Eden, the choice Adam had to choose God and God to choose Adam is the pinnacle of the symphonic relationship offered to humanity. God made a choice to create mankind, God made a choice to create a space for mankind to exist and thrive, and God created us to have the meaning of our existence found in relationship to Him, but God in confidence of His own character allows the beauty of choice to be offered to His most prized creation. Even though Adam made the choice to allow sin to creep in, God also had an immediate plan for Adam and all of us to rejoin Him in the Edenic way of life. God offers this way of life 6000 years ago, He offered it to Israel, He offered in through Jesus and still offers it in modern worldly culture.
Perhaps I am conflating the process of sanctification and a Calvinist’s emphasis on Total depravity. Some Calvinists have found better definitions and better views. Within any paradigm there are good views and poor views and much of this article is taking face with the “more difficult” views of Calvinism. You can’t put everyone’s theology in the same box. I also would give some time to understanding that Calvinism could be correct in the eyes of the Lord. No one knows. I am waiting for the heavenly Mars Hill moment when all truth is given. Until then, as always; I and the crew at Expedition 44 have sought to best help you understand an exegetical approach to interpreting what God has for us.
That said, I will hold to my convictions that any of the points of Calvinism stain the gift and beauty of what Jesus offers freely to us in complete abundance. It also deeply affects our purpose for existing, working, and even our relationships with others. The spiritual implications of the death of Christ and his resurrection from the tomb sent an earthquake experienced not only on Earth, but in the spiritual realm through which humanity now has an opportunity to receive empowerment and restoration found deep in the fibers of their being. The covenant faithfulness God has been after has now been exemplified and found in Jesus Christ as a living example to humanity of the life and relationships were created for. We are living sacrifices whose very nature is not the embodiment of death, but life. We are the image of life in Jesus to its fullest!
If we believe God’s heart for humanity is that everyone come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) it will never come from guilt, shame, or condemnation, (John 3:17), but from a people saturated with the same irresistible character traits of God himself. The ones who create life where there was death, the ones who foster peace where there is chaos, the ones who grow and build and create beauty.
God didn’t need mankind to continue what He created in the garden, but offered man an opportunity to partner with Him, devoted to His purposes. This was an incredible gift offered to Adam and that same gift is offered to us today through the blood of Jesus Christ. That’s a life worth living and a far cry from the ugliness and depravity of mankind depicted in Calvinism. Make a choice today to receive the full extent of liberation offered to you as a redeemed child of the Kingdom of God. Claim and live to the fullest image of Jesus here and now and to the glory of what is to come!
SPECIAL THANKS TO THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ARTICLE: Dr. Matt Mouzakis, Dr. Steve Cassell, Dr. David Lunow, & Paul Lazzaroni
SOME BETTER RESOURCES:
https://soteriology101.com/ I like Flowers as he does a great job of refuting Calvinism but he is a provisionist which means he still affirms PSA and eternal security which I do not agree with, but still love so much about what my brother teaches.
EXPEDITION 44 