we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:8
Many readers are familiar with the phrase stand and fight, perhaps because of James Taylor’s song, the popularity and adoption as an NRA phrase, or likely the multiple times in history the phrase has been used as a rally anthem. As I have never been very political, over the years I have become friends with and have grown to greatly love and respect the Johnson family. Mostly Barry, but also his brother, the Wisconsin Senator, Ron Johnson. I sent Barry a box with some expedition 44 gear in it and he returned the gift of grace reciprocally by sending me a box with some things in it. One of the gifts was a “stand and fight” hat signed by Ron with the message handwritten to me, “stay in the fight”. You might remember this hat as I wore it in the expedition 44 video episode 11 in the church series with Dr. Matt Mouzakis and Dr. Steve Cassell where I switched hats back and forth as we discussed nationalism in contrast with citizenship in the kingdom of God. Part of my DNA (right or wrong) has always been that there is a time to stand and fight and there is a time or season to simply be quiet and be at peace, very much in the spirit of Ecclesiastes 3.
Unfortunately, many of the times in life we find ourselves fighting, it is often with the ones we love the most. Mr. Rogers once said, 1.
“It’s the people we love the most who can make us feel the gladdest … and the maddest! Love and anger are such a puzzle!”
It has always been sad to me how many people simply part ways because they can’t work through something, yet at the same time I think we can all relate. I dream of a community in Jesus where that isn’t the case.
We have all loved something that wasn’t easy and had to decide whether to fight or walk away, to most this is perhaps the ongoing struggle of life. I have never been the slightest bit suicidal but earlier this year something took place in our close family circle that made me start devoting thought and prayer to this illness of the world. I took on very much a mentality of prayerful “intercessory fighting” against the spirits of this stronghold as I “stood in the gap.” In 2020 Christian artist, TobyMac wrote a song titled “21 Years” to honor Truett Foster McKeehan, his 21-year-old. In an Interview with People Magazine he said,
“Writing this song felt like an honest confession of the questions, pain, anger, doubt, mercy and promise that describes the journey I’m probably only beginning. One thing I know is that I am not alone. God didn’t promise us a life of no pain or even tragic death, but He did promise He would never leave us or forsake us. And I’m holding dearly to that promise for my son as well as myself.”
I love the transparency Toby has in this song (as a father of 4 boys it is very difficult for me to listen to though), but I have found that being utterly transparent with people is unfortunately often met with a lack of people’s desire to understand the true intentions of your heart and meet you with a spirit of edification seeing your desire to move towards a greater love. When we fail as the body of Christ in this way it leaves a feeling of emptiness and desire to want to escape rather than invest.
Definition of Absent – 3. “The fantasy of escape from the struggle of existence must be deeply addressed if one is to find the vital center of one’s being.”
This year, perhaps for the first time in life, I “understood” why someone might make such a tragic decision as suicide. I don’t agree with it or think it is what God wants in any way, but I understood the conviction. You often hear things like, “I just want it to be over,” or “I’m so tired.” These words convey the idea of deep exhaustion. That dreadful feeling of running out of options, or simply longing to end the never-ending fight.
As you likely know, I have learned a great deal studying Ancient Near East (ANE) culture and specifically Hebraic life and thought. In Hebrew one of the words for walk is “halak” (connected to the primary root of being created to praise which is halal) and has become metaphoric or idiomatic for walking with the Lord. One of my best friends has this tattoo on his arm which embodies the idiom of taking every step, heart, mind, and intellect in devotion to the Lord. In traditional Judaism, -4 “halakhic man prefers the real world to a transcendental existence because here, in this world, man is given the opportunity to create, act, accomplish, while there, in the world to come, he is powerless to change anything at all.”
Escapism has never been my thing. I don’t see Christ coming back in a grand disappearing act of rapture, and I believe most of scripture was primarily written in application to people to live out the here and now. Of course, there may be a secondary message in some texts with an “already not yet” sense to it, but the primary message to the original audience that can in most cases be somewhat adapted for us (as a recipient of reading the narrative) should be theologically considered a mere aspect of hope eschatologically. We were created first and foremost for this life. To be honest, the great majority of unbiased theologians and I can’t for sure say what the eschatological recreated Heaven and Earth will look like. We just weren’t given those cards in the playbook we have, just mere glimpses of what it could be.
However, I do know one thing. The Exodus motif is strong in the story. We are all on, or at least should be on a road of great redemption. Our hope, or trust, or driving force should be one of freedom, healing, and peace on our personal path of sanctification. God desires that we walk as redeemed sons and daughters in Joy. How do you know when to hang on and when to just simply let go?
Remember the famous line from M. Scott Peck, “Life is difficult,” perhaps he was just quoting John 16:33. If we are walking well, we are guaranteed tribulation, but also joy. Sometimes we wonder if we will ever get to the joy part. What does God have for me? Am I living my best life, or did I miss that bus? What has gotten in the way, perhaps pride, the world, intentions not recognized, a lack of edification of the body, or just simply the enemy seeking to destroy.
There is no doubt if you are doing it well, you are an alien to and in the situation you are in. Sometimes this is in the company of those you thought were “your people.” In Hebrew there is a phrase, that says our role is to bring about tikkun ‘olam, healing here—little by little, that become ripples across the galaxy, perhaps a spec of sand on a beach. Maybe before the Lord we shouldn’t have expectations for any more than this. And my friend Skip would say, “when heaven arrives on earth, we’ll still be here, enjoying the reality of the ideal, having never left to find peace someplace else.”
There may be a time to stand and fight, I haven’t got the answer for you on that one. But I do know that Jesus embodied peace, self-sacrifice, grace, and reconciliation of all things taking on the power under not over. It’s an upside down kingdom.
I typically lean towards the views that have been held the longest, but more so want to go after total truth. I am not particularly tied into any system within the world or theology. I’m not into denominations or camps. I simply want to follow what the Bible says. My goal is and always has been to determine the best Biblical view according to the whole lens of the Bible. I am seeking to lead people to the truth. I care little for anything other than what the Bible says, although a well-built firearm also puts a smile on my face!
GOALS OF THIS ARTICLE:
To consider a better “Jesus” perspective considering the war-torn conflicts of the world.
To be more educated about Biblical Israel vs Modern Israel.
To understand and Identify Zionism and Dispensational Theology.
To begin to construct a better theology concerning the Kingdom of Jesus and how you pray about and interact with others in regard to these issues.
OUTLINE OF THIS ARTICLE:
INTRODUCTORY THOUGHTS
DISPENSATIONALISM AND HOW IT RELATES TO ISRAEL
BIBLICAL ISRAEL
TIMELINE OF ISRAEL
MODERN ISRAEL
CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS
This article is a 30-minute read.
INTRODUCTION
Before I dive into this article, I want to give a basic context to the direction and why I have decided to devote a good deal of my time here. In my opinion, Steve Gregg of the Narrow Path is one of the leading Christian voices on Israel and dispensationalism. Most of what he says is very difficult to give credit to because it is in audio format primarily. That is one of the reasons why I have decided to keep this article on the less scholarly side. But that being said, I want to give credit where credit is due and consider him to personally be the best Christian voice on this subject matter.
I am in no way anti-Israel or anti-Palestine (for that matter) as I am not anti-American in any way. (For the record, I have both American and Israeli flags in my workshop, but don’t read too much into that.) There is good and bad in every nation, Christian and non-Christian, everywhere you look. Just because something started off wrong doesn’t mean it can’t be reconciled. Isn’t that what we are doing as Christians? You can’t judge everyone by the acts of a few good or bad people or even likely by the history of that nation or entity. To be clear, I have no tolerance for evil on any side and it seems like there are a lot of atrocities happening in our world right now that are pure evil, but most of the people involved are victims and that breaks my heart. I am for the kingdom of Jesus in every way with an unwavering sole conviction to that state of living. My faithful pledge isn’t to any of the worldly systems or nations, just Jesus. I am thankful that the political landscape of America allows me to worship Jesus.
Many talk about Israel and the end times as if we have been given a map in the Bible. As if in this road map we should be looking for directional signs that point to rapture, tribulation, and an earthly return to Israel. These point us to the culmination, where God reunites with the nation of Israel to rule the world. Most of us grew up indoctrinated into this kind of thinking. With the recent war in the Ukraine and now Israel, many have asked me for my thoughts. There are several conservative scholars who think similarly to what follows and if you are part of the Expedition 44 community you likely already know this. The good majority of evangelical theologians would hold to or support the sum of what I will present here. These thoughts and the theology represented aren’t specific to me and are not original to me.
I don’t know if we are living in the last days, or the end times; no one really does except the Lord. My theology doesn’t fear any kind of great tribulation. I live each day simply seeking to honor the King and live in joy and peace here and now contributing to the Kingdom through the gifts endowed to me, with some expectation for the return of the King and the ensuing kingdom to come whether it be in my lifetime or not.
No one knows the time or the hour of Jesus’ return. If I look at history, I would have thought everything was lined up in 70 AD for the return of Jesus and it didn’t happen. The biblical signs lined up much closer to that time than I would say they do now or any other time in history and that is why full preterism (which I do not subscribe to) wonders if Christ might have actually returned at that time and the rest of the world missed it (perhaps at Massada). This may surprise some of the readers here, but I don’t think any of the current events of our day biblically point to the end times in any way, and certainly not any more than we have witnessed in past history at multiple times already. Nearly every generation since Jesus walked this earth have thought that they were living in the last days. Christ may come back tomorrow or in another 2000 years or more. We simply don’t know the time or the hour and to try to continually figure this out is most accurately described in the Bible as divination, which we are regularly warned against. Expedition 44 has a 13-part series on eschatology if you want to dive in deeper on this subject.
In 586 BC Yahweh (the best name for the God of Israel) handed over Israel to their own desires which resulted in judgment and brought exile and the diaspora (spreading of the people of Israel) which continued through 70 AD when Rome destroyed Jerusalem and continued to spread Jews all over the world into modern history. Since 136 AD the land around what we refer to as modern-day Israel was simply called Palestine. It was a melting pot for those that originally came from the nations we read about in the Bible, not just Israel but many of the peoples that became intermixed. It was ruled or “owned” by several different entities for hundreds of years at a time. Today the people we refer to as Israeli are intermixed. There likely isn’t such a person as a pure covenant keeping Israelite since the generation of King Salomon. That was a result of the Israelites continually intermarrying against God’s command to not do that. Today you would be hard pressed, or I might even say, “it is impossible” to find a “Jew” that has not intermarried in their family heritage somewhere during the past 2000 years. In this “biological” sense there actually aren’t any pure Yahweh Covenant Israelites left. This gets even more complicated when you consider Jews under Yahweh were tied to Him by keeping the covenant and if they no longer kept the covenant than technically, they weren’t considered one of God’s chosen people anymore, although that notion is quite controversial. Historical-Biblical Israel represents the original nation that God called under His law that was supposed to be His primary “pure and undefiled” agents of regathering the world but is now extinct as a nation of God because of their sin. God handed them over to their desires and of their own choices they are no longer recognizable as the people of God. By this description they weren’t divorced or annihilated or anything else like that, they essentially just made decisions that eventually removed themselves from the idea of the original covenant of Yahweh with Israel. That however was not God’s intended plan for them. I will touch more on this later.
Modern Israel is a secular nation far from the nation of Israel that was established roughly 1500 years before Christ. The modern nation isn’t religious, and it certainly isn’t built on the law of Moses, nor does it take on any intrinsic commissioning from the Lord. Israel is a pluralistic society far from the nation of Biblical Israel of 3000 years ago. In fact, in the 1980’s there was a law in Israel that said anyone can join Israel unless you’re a Christian. In this sense Israel actually seems like a political anti-Jesus nation. The roughly 15,000 Christians in Jerusalem today, the majority of them Palestinians, were once 27,000 – before hardships that followed the 1967 war spurred many in the traditionally prosperous group to emigrate. Perhaps there is a Jesus fearing Jew in the land of modern Israel but as I will go on to show, they are theologically considered as “all of Israel” grafted into a family of new covenant Jesus followers and part of a redefined kingdom, the old Israel in a Biblical sense of land and calling is no longer what it once was by Biblical definition, A nation, they left that covenant generations ago. Much of God’s covenant was Israel was established in a communal (tribal) sense rather than a personal sense. Under the New Covenant there is still a sense of community with other believers but not necessarily in the same way that God’s chosen people Israel were charged under the law.
The Biblical mandate to Israel in Deuteronomy 7 that was a major part of the overall covenant said don’t intermarry (with people that worship other gods) or you will no longer be my people and the covenant will be broken; in the first few generations of Israel nearly all of them intermarried. Of course there were other parts of the covenant that were also broken. Today we are 50 generations later and there aren’t any, likely not one Jew, whose generational family hasn’t violated this very basic Hebraic law given by God to Moses in covenant to His chosen people, not to mention the other laws. In this sense there is no longer a covenant keeping Old Testament Israel by Biblical definition.
Israelites were always saved by covenant keeping devotion, not simply by their ethnic roots.
Even if there was a 3500+ generational covenant keeping family, their salvation is through the fact that they have kept the covenant, not that they are ethnic Israel. In this same sense, there is a new covenant or New Testament calling to “all Israel” as those that have chosen to walk in covenant with Jesus as the King of a sole kingdom. No one is automatically grafted in; you have to make an allegiant decision to be part of the Jesus kingdom and the new covenant. This has actually been the case in both the Old Testament and the New Testament alike. Some say that God’s blessings are perpetual for the Jews, and I might agree, but if you are going to hold to that reasoning, you also have to hold to generational curses. You can’t select one without the other.
The problem of Dispensationalism
I grew up hearing that everything is about Israel. The last days will come, and God’s people will be Israel so we better be aligned with them. There are two views that have influenced this way of thinking. One is called Zionism and the other is called Dispensationalism. Both are “theologies” of man. Unfortunately, nearly all of us grew up thinking that Zionist or dispensationalist ideologies were biblical without thinking much about it.
The term “Zionism” is derived from the word Zion a hill in Jerusalem, widely symbolizing the Land of Israel. Throughout eastern Europe in the late 19th century, numerous grassroots groups promoted the national resettlement of the Jews in their ancient homeland, as well as the revitalization and cultivation of the Hebrew language. These groups were collectively called the “Lovers of Zion” and were seen as countering a growing Jewish movement toward assimilation. The first use of the term is attributed to the Austrian Nathan Birnbaum, founder of the Kadimah nationalist Jewish students’ movement; he used the term in 1890 in his journal Selbst-Emancipation (Self-Emancipation), itself named almost identically to Leon Pinsker’s 1882 book Auto-Emancipation.
Dispensationalism is a theological framework of interpreting the Bible which maintains that history is divided into multiple ages or “dispensations” in which God acts with his people in different ways. The term “dispensationalism” is attributed to Philip Mauro, a critic of the system’s teachings in his 1928 book The Gospel of the Kingdom. Dispensationalists believe that there is a distinction between Israel and the rest of the Church. They maintain beliefs in premillennialism, a future restoration of national Israel, and a rapture of the Church that will happen before the Second Coming of Christ, generally seen as happening before a period of tribulation. Dispensationalism was systematized and promoted by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the mid-19th century. Dispensationalism began its spread in the United States during the late 19th century through the efforts of evangelists like James Inglis, James Hall Brookes, Dwight L. Moody, the efforts of the Niagara Bible Conference, and the establishment of Bible Institutes. With the dawn of the 20th century, C. I. Scofield introduced the Scofield Reference Bible, which solidified dispensationalism in the United States. Dispensationalism is commonly found in nondenominational Bible churches, Baptists, Pentecostal, and charismatic groups.
You are likely not familiar with these definitions or names and have also just assumed much of what you hear about Israel and the end times to be true or Biblical. You probably don’t realize that if you believe some of these things (or tenets of their theology) that you are falling into a newer (1830’s Darby) view of theology. William Blackwell who was the father of Zionism was a dispensational preacher. They would tell you that God is always on the side of Israel as a nation but gave very little exegetical evidence to think this way.
You are probably familiar with the terms pre tribulation, mid tribulation, and post tribulation. Whether you realize it or not, these are tenets of dispensationalism. They aren’t really in the Bible; they are definitions that men made up in the last 200 years to describe the end times and a bunch of other presuppositions based on a “loose” interpretation of Scripture. All of this is a biblical presupposition, no one thought these ways of thinking were theologically sound or a valid theological option of good exegesis before the last 200 years. Out of the various differing and confusing options within dispensationalism, pre tribulation has been the most common view, and I grew up hearing that the great disappearing act (otherwise known as the rapture) would happen and there is then seven years after that of great tribulation and Israel will work exclusively with God as a nation again and that will give way to a 1000-year millennium period where God works again through a reinstated nation of Israel. The temple will be rebuilt, animal sacrifices in the temple will begin again, and the Levitical priesthood will be re-established. But just stop for a moment and consider that. Aren’t those messages actually anti Jesus?* We are the temple of the Holy Spirit, to wish another temple to be built would be working against what God has already established. We don’t need any more sacrifices. Hebrews makes it very clear Jesus was the final and complete sacrifice. Anyone who believes is part of the new covenant priesthood. All those things are anti, or against what the Bible says the new covenant is, and that is just naming a few of the tenets of dispensationalism.
*NOTE: 1 Cor 3:16-17, 1 Cor 6:15-20, 2 Cor 6:14-18, Eph 2:19-22, 1 Pet 2:5, Jesus Himself in John 2:19 (quoted by the Jews, His enemies, in Mark 14:58 when they were trying to legally prosecute Him). It is further verified that in Rev 21:22 John specifically said there was NO TEMPLE)
But you can see why a dispensationalist would be pushing for Israel to be a nation again as they believe all these things are a checklist to happen before Jesus returns. Where did they get these ideas from? To be honest I don’t know. When you try to find them anywhere in the Bible, especially in Revelation it requires a pretty vivid imagination and a complete departure from sound exegesis and hermeneutics.
Dispensationalists believe that Daniel talked about 490 years to deal with Israel (which I agree with). 483 years gets you to the triumphal entry. If you are a dispensational, you believe that the clock stopped for some reason right then, and the last seven years will restart at the rapture. Now I will say, that doesn’t seem to fit any hermeneutic I am familiar with. Thinking this way seems very much like trying to bend Scripture to say what you want it to say. I don’t see any merit exegetically for just deciding that the clock is going to miraculously stop and restart when the church is raptured. I also might add here that I graduated from Moody Bible Institute which (as mentioned above) is the leading dispensational school in the world. I spent four years studying under the best dispensational teachers and left scratching my head in confusion upon graduation.
I don’t believe the 490-year clock stopped. That doesn’t really make any sense. If you want to see what the Bible says in regard to the 490 years here is a video explaining everything from a more Biblical perspective.
I won’t deny that there has been a fascination in the church with all things Israel. Most Christians I know think that we should support Israel as if they are currently still a nation ruled directly by God.
Every verse that is quoted that describes the nation of Israel as God’s people is an Old Testament verse. Romans 9-11 uses a term “all Israel” which is talking about the new covenant of all believers, the Olive Tree of Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11. The context of all of Romans for salvation is to those that believe in Jesus. Those under the new covenant and the kingdom of Jesus will be saved. That’s it, and the Bible makes this very clear. No one is going to be saved that doesn’t profess a complete trust and/or display allegiance to Jesus. Salvation comes to those that place their obedient faith and live a life dedicated to the following of Jesus.
What about prophecy? There are a lot of predictions in the Old Testament that say things like God will re-establish Israel as a nation. That is true, but this happened after the Babylonian Exile. In 586 BC Nebuchadnezzar destroyed their temple and dispersed the Jews and years later in 439 BC the Jews returned to their land fulfilling all of these prophetic scriptures and this continued through Ezra and Nehemiah with the returning of exiles. That is when all of these scriptures were fulfilled CLEARLY. That is all the prediction we get in the Bible. There isn’t anything anywhere about a later return of Israel to their physical land.
Now I can see why you might be confused, because Israel does return to the land promised to them as you know. In 1948 Israel returns to their ancient land to re-establish itself as a nation. Is that a foreshadow or double fulfillment? Well, the Bible doesn’t ever say this. You would have to generate or make this up to get there. It is only a foreshadow if the New Testament identifies this. There isn’t anywhere in the New Testament that does this with a nation re-forming of Israel. The Bible never gives us that. This may surprise you, but I challenge you to find any verses that say that. You think it says this because dispensationalism in our generation has been so grafted into most church theology (or lack of), but the Bible doesn’t say this. It is all based on man’s elaborate imagination of what they want the Bible to say, it’s a man-made narrative with a Zionist national agenda. I usually refer to this kind of theology as a sign of man engineering what we want the Bible to communicate.
This article really isn’t on the problems of Dispensationalism but many of them tie into the conversation of how we view Israel today. There are lots of Expedition 44 articles that deal with the problems of dispensationalism but not necessarily a dedicated article, yet. In the meantime, this is one of the best recent videos on the subject by Steve Gregg.
HISTORICAL – BIBLICAL ISRAEL:
The first hint of a nation dedicated to God is in the Abrahamic promise to bless all nations which eventually comes to fruition by the seed of his family in several turns of events in and through Christ (Galatians 3:16). But when you think of Israel you usually think about the story several generations later of Moses rescuing this melting pot of people who were slaves in Egypt and establishing a nation in them as a Theocratic kingdom under God.
When I say melting pot, I mean that it started as a mixed group of people. This is also likely different than what you have always thought of Israel. We often think of the Israelites as pure descendants of Abraham, but we get the hint that this is less ethnic than covenant related. For example, Exodus 12:38 states that when Israel left Egypt that, “a mixed multitude went up with them.” Yahweh selected the Hebrews to be His representatives on earth, but He was never to be the God of only the descendants of Abraham. The plan was to reclaim the mixed peoples of the earth through Abraham’s descendants and those that joined the covenant. He wanted all peoples to know Him through Israel. This mixed multitude crossed the Red Sea, heard the voice of God at Sinai and sojourned in the wilderness for 40 years with Israel. In God’s covenant with Abraham He told Him that through Abraham that “all the nations of the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 18:18). The Exodus is the beginning of that fulfillment. God teaches that when gentiles believe in Him and obey Him that they “shall be like a native of the land” (Exodus 12:48). This principle repeated in Leviticus 19:34 and Ezekiel 47:22 and throughout the Old Testament we see a few pictures of gentiles entering into Covenant through the nation of Israel to Yahweh. What made you part of the Israelite family was your allegiant agreement to follow the precepts of Yahweh in covenant faithfulness. A sign of covenant faithfulness in the Old Testament was circumcision. Likewise, when Jesus instituted the New Covenant there was a similar sign of faithfulness indicated by baptism. Neither physical action necessarily saved you.
As you may be figuring out, in the end, as so much of the New Testament would say, there is no difference between Jew and gentile. What makes us part of the body is the same as it was in the Old Testament, which is covenant faithfulness. The law was needed as a stop gap until the Messiah could offer what was needed once and for all in the atonement offering a complete covenant with eternal promise.
In Exodus 19 God says to these people:
5 “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. ‘Although the whole earth is mine,6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
I often hear people talk about covenants. I have spent a lot of time and written books on covenant promises and although some theologians divide these promises into what they describe as conditional or unconditional covenants (and I agree with the basic reasoning), I am going to say that all covenants have some element of mutual understanding and agreement. In the verse above you see the first phrase being “IF YOU OBEY ME FULLY.” Does this sound reciprocal to you? Does this sound like it describes a relationship of circular expectation? Why would you read this any other way? God says to Israel if you keep my law, you will be my people – and how long did it take for them to fail at this? About 2 weeks. Within 2 weeks they didn’t do their part and what was God’s reaction with Moses? He says the people are unfaithful and he wants to destroy them and start over with Moses in Exodus 32. Yet what follows is one of the most amazing passages in the Bible of God listening to and acting on a prayerful plea. Yahweh is actually swayed by the heart of Moses as Moses pleas with Yahweh and changes God’s mind. Yahweh doesn’t destroy them, but eventually (hundreds of years later) will hand them over to their own desires. They choose to replace God with human rulers called kings. They continually break covenant with God by intermarrying, worshipping other gods, and not living according to the law given to them. They are described as an adulterous nation before the Lord. Eventually the Jews (Israel) are the ones that put His son Jesus on the cross as a final picture of completely rejecting God,
When Jesus is raised from the dead, ascended and sits at the right hand of the father sending His spirit back to the church, the New Covenant is established for all who believe, both Jews and gentiles. Which, as your probably realizing, was the plan from the beginning. The plan from the start with Abraham was to reclaim all who would believe to be saved and join a kingdom of God separate from the kingdoms of the world. The plan to reclaim the world would start with God working through Israel as His reclaiming ambassadors but when they so visibly failed God, the plan turned from Israel as part of the reclaiming plan to simply anyone who believed in Jesus as the Messiah to be the primary representatives of this reclaiming nation. This is described as ALL OF ISRAEL in Romans 9-11 and is simply all who allegiantly live by the name Jesus. This is described as the faithful remnant of those who follow Jesus. There is nothing in my Bible in the New Testament about any worldly nation that God is going to use. The only nation is the spiritual sense of the Jesus Kingdom. America will never be God’s kingdom and modern Israel will not be that nation, or at least the Bible doesn’t give us that (it could happen, anything could happen – but we aren’t told that it will in scripture.). Perhaps you may share a notion of dual citizenship, but as a Christ follower your primary allegiance should be to the Kingdom of Jesus and not the systems of the world.
I should also mention that there is merit to the consideration of unconditional covenants. As you have already sensed, I am hesitant here because I believe all covenants are circular in some way. But it is worth noting that in the case of land the promise was fulfilled to Israel. The land was given to them regardless of whether they were obedient in driving out the Canaanites or obeying the rest of God’s commands in regard to it. God still gave them the land; they simply went on to lose it. There is no other prophecy for the land to be given back to them after it was lost.
There is no promise that says God will continue to win back the physical land for the nation of Israel in generations to come as so many people seem to think God will do. The land was given once and then lost. God doesn’t promise to win and back and keep giving it to Israel over and over again for thousands of years. The promise was that if they were covenant keepers, they would remain His nation. The main verse that someone might cite to argue this statement would be Genesis 17:8, “I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojourning, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” The intent was that God’s people would keep the covenant and become the greatest physical nation on earth. But due to their unfaithfulness that never happened. But I admit, there are a couple of options for interpretation here. At first the plainly read consideration is to think that physical land of Canaan will be promised to Abraham’s descendants in a literal sense of the term forever. Well, you can do that, and I am fine with this interpretation in a human literal sense, but you have to keep it literal. I can give you ownership of something that is intended to be forever, but you might still lose it. We see this with generational inheritance all the time. Wills are written that the family farm might be passed on to the family “forever”, but we all know eventually someone sells it. But perhaps the intention of the text is more eternal. In Hebrew the word eternal (olam) natively describes God or what He enables in an eschatological sense. In this way nothing is truly eternal except God. This statement is an “eternal land promise” which ties in with the New Testament Kingdom in verses such as Heb 11:10, 13, 16, 38-40 and not a physical territory next to the Mediterranean Sea.
The eternal aspect of God’s promised land designates a place where He and His people would meet forever. Perhaps, God birthed this promise from the ashes of His original hopes for the Garden of Eden. When the Psalmist retold the statement, “Oh let Israel say, “His lovingkindness is everlasting,” (Psalm 118:2), was he thinking of a place where God would forever dwell with His people? It seems rather clear that we are to relate the everlasting possession with the New Testament promises of eternal life; the two forged into one thought and future. Jesus spoke clearly of the eternal state. The Jewish believers no doubt attached this promise of eternal life with God’s promise to Abraham’s descendants. Jesus often used Abrahamic language to speak of eternal things: “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth there when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being cast out” (Luke 13:28).
While I am on the subject of the land it is also worth noting that people were invited to the promised land after they declared their allegiance to Yahweh. It was connected to that covenant. Currently, in the land we refer to as national Israel, less than 2% (some statistics indicate far less than this) of the population confesses an allegiant belief in Jesus as the Messiah. In both percentage and overall numbers, there are more confessing Christians residing in Palestine than in Israel. By the end of this article, you may find that these truths will expand, or change, your prayers about who you think God is supporting in this war.
This is going to start to sound like a broken record, but it is a crucial point, there is never a time when Israel was an ethnic designation. They started as a mixed multitude out of Egypt. The ability to be part of God’s plan was always given to those that were willing to live by covenant. The nation was defined then and today by those who keep the covenant. The Jew who rejects the covenant is cut off from the kingdom.
Hebrews 8:13 clearly establishes the new covenant to be those that hold to a new covenant. If you don’t keep the covenant you aren’t part of the Kingdom of God. If you aren’t faithful to Jesus, you aren’t faithful to God. It has nothing to do with a physical race or even the physical land anymore. The new covenant didn’t re-establish land. Quite the opposite. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. The new Kingdom of Jesus is promised land only in an eschatological sense of the recreated heavens and earth. We may reclaim “land” (such as something we own rededicated to the Lord) to some extent declaring it is holy, but we don’t get any idea of this in the Bible directed towards any kind of political entity or kingdom of land. It may happen, and I pray that perhaps it will, but the Bible doesn’t say this will happen. This is because Israel defiled the land that was given to them and because God is holy, He no longer desired the land that was defiled. The plan needed to be adapted and it was adapted by God and called the New Covenant. The old land became an atrocity to the Lord and a new Earth is being created.
TIMELINE CONCERNING ISRAEL:
In order to truly understand modern Israel, it is important to first consider their history. Here is a brief timeline of the nation and lands of Israel and Palestine.
1600 BCE Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob –settle in the Land that God had given them but eventually the tribes of Israel go down to Egypt because of a severe famine in the Land of Israel and become enslaved by Egypt.
1200 BCE The Exodus of a mixed peoples from Egypt that return to the land of their father Abraham under a theocracy of Yahweh. Unfortunately, they immediately turn from Yahweh and worship other gods which begins their covenant unfaithfulness.
1020 BCE The Kingdom of Israel is established under Yahweh; but then Israel chooses an earthly King instead of Theocracy. They choose to be ruled by an earthly king in place of direct rule by God.
1000 BCE Jerusalem becomes the capital of the Kingdom of Israel under King David in effort to return the nation to Yahweh.
960 BCE The First Temple is built, a spiritual center of the people in an attempt to return rule to God, but the people continue to deny Yahweh and follow other God’s and nations.
722-720 BCE God begins to hand over the people of Israel to their own desires which results in judgment and the Kingdom of Israel that is located in the northern Land of Israel is conquered by Assyria; ten tribes go into exile.
586 BCE God hands over the rest of Israel as the Kingdom of Judah is conquered by Babylonia; Jerusalem and the Temple are laid waste; the Jews are exiled to Babylonia starting the Diaspora.
538-515 BCE Yahweh gives Israel another chance by sending the remnant and initializing the return to Zion after the proclamation of Cyrus – some Jews return from Babylon; the Temple is rebuilt but only a remnant seems to desire to return to Yahweh and live in covenant faithfulness. This fulfills nearly every scriptural prophecy of restoration to Israel.
332 BCE The Land of Israel is conquered by Alexander the Great turning towards Hellenistic rule.
166-160 BCE The Hasmonean Revolt against the Greek Empire in reaction to the constraints imposed on Jewish religious practice.
129-63 BCE Jewish political independence under the Hasmonean Kingdom.
63 BCE to 4 CE King Herod rules in the Land of Israel; the temple is expanded but becomes very political and some would say the Spirit of Yahweh never returns to the temple.
33 Jesus is crucified and risen establishing the New Covenant and kingdom under the risen Saviour.
66 The Jews rebel against the Romans.
70 The destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple.
73 The Romans’ battle to conquer Masada,
136 The Romans change the name of Judea to Syria Palaestina and the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. “Palestine” is adapted as a melting pot of people that are deemed lesser than Romans occupying land that once was claimed by Israel.
638 -1517 The liberation of Jerusalem by a combined force of different peoples, Persians and Jews. The Dome of the Rock is built on the Temple Mount on the presumed location of the first and second temples. The land switches hands from Crusader, Mamluk, and Ottoman rule.
1897 The First Zionist Congress in Basel under the aegis of Binyamin Ze’ev Herzl.
May 16, 1916 The Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and Britain over the Palestine area gives way to the November 2, 1917 The Balfour Declaration – a document signed by British foreign minister Lord Arthur James Balfour (dispensational Christian), which espouses a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.
January 3, 1919 The Faisal-Weizmann agreement between Chaim Weizmann and Emir Faisal – an agreement that establishes both Arabs and the Jews in the Land of Israel. In reaction, the April 25, 1920 San Remo Agreement gave Britain rule over the land of Israel and controversially ratified former agreement.
May 1-7, 1921-1929 Arab riots in Jaffa, Petah Tikva, Rehovot, Hadera, and elsewhere, in which 43 people were killed. The riots were spurred by the Arab national awakening and the demand to annul the Balfour Declaration. August 23, 1929 Riots in Hebron, Jerusalem, and Safed. Arabs murder 133 Jews.
July 7, 1937 The Peel Commission – the partition resolution is accepted by the British administration, en-Gurion, and the Zionist institutions, and is rejected by the Arabs.
March 22, 1945 The establishment of the Arab League with Cairo as its hub.
November 29, 1947 Approval of the partition plan by the General Assembly of the United Nations – Resolution 181.
November 29, 1947 to July 20, 1949 The War of Independence; from May 15 to June 11 – the regular Arab armies’ invasion of the Land of Israel. 6000 Jews were killed during the war.
February 24, 1949 to July 20, 1949 Armistice agreements (Rhodes agreements).
March 23 – Lebanon, April 3 – Jordan, July 20 – Syria 1948 (until 1967) Jerusalem is divided between Israel and Jordan along the armistice lines: Jordan holds the eastern part of the city, Israel the western and southern parts. Jews are denied access to the Old City and the holy places in contravention of the armistice agreement.
1949 Massive aliyah to Israel from Arab states and North Africa, and of displaced Jews from Europe. The Jewish population doubles from 650,000 to 1,300,000.
May 11, 1949 Israel is accepted as the 59th member of the United Nations.
December 5, 1949 Jerusalem is declared the capital of Israel by David Ben-Gurion.
June 5, 1967 to June 10, 1967 The Six-Day War between Israel and Arab states: Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.
September 1, 1967 Meeting of the Arab League in Khartoum, which laid down the “three no’s”: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.
November 22, 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242 calls for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, Israeli withdrawal from lands it conquered in the Six-Day War, a solution to the refugee problem, and the guaranteeing of free passage for ships through international lanes.
November 10, 1975 UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, which equates Zionism with racism.
December 16, 1991 The UN General Assembly revokes Resolution 3379 (that equates Zionism with racism).
October 26, 1994 The signing of the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty.
September 28, 1995 The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
May 2, 2002 Establishment of the Middle East Quartet (the Quartet) – the European Union (EU), United States, United Nations, and Russia
April 14, 2004 Letter from President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stating that it is unrealistic to expect “a full and complete withdrawal to the armistice lines of 1949” – the letter reiterates U.S. commitment to “defensible borders” for Israel.
August 20, 2010 The invitation of Israel and the Palestinians to face-to-face negotiations by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
May 4, 2011 A reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas in Cairo.
May 24, 2011 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears before both houses of the U.S. Congress, explaining that “Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.”
September 23, 2011 The submission to the UN secretary-general of a request by the Palestinian Authority that Palestine be recognized as a UN member state.
The International recognition of the State of Palestine has been the objective of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since the Palestinian Declaration of Independence on 15 November. By the end of the year, the proclaimed Palestinian state was recognized by over 78 countries. As of 31 July 2019, 138 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states and two non-member states have recognized it (Israel is recognized by 165). Palestine also has been a non-member observer state of the UN General Assembly since the passing of United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 in November 2012.
As a Christian how do you view the control of land through war? For instance, the majority of those reading this article are Americans. The United States has acquired new territories through war, cession, purchase, and occupation. Most of land throughout history has been acquired by nations through war. How do you view land dominion and ownership from a worldly sense of justice based on what the Bible says? Let’s specifically consider the geography that God once gave to Israel as the promised land.
The region of Palestine has been controlled by a mixed group of Arabs (for lack of better word) for at least 1300 years and perhaps even the last 2000 years since 70AD. The Jews actually haven’t had singular rule of the land referred to as Palestine and/or Israel for thousands of years. They lost the land. Lands are inhabited or conquered and even though a country may have roots from hundreds or even thousands of years before, the land wouldn’t any longer be considered “theirs” by any modern measure.
For Instance, Great Britain once clearly owned the land the US inhabits now. A war was waged and what resulted was the claim that a new country would be born, the United States. But even now, England technically has owned it longer than the US has, would that mean they still have some kind of rightful claim to it? After the war for Independence and establishing of a new nation in 1776 the US wanted more land and in the name of westward expansion, (amongst other purchases and deals) they fought Mexico and the Indians and took the land they wanted through war. In the French and Indian War (1754–63), America fought between France and Great Britain primarily to gain land. It determined control of the vast colonial territory of North America. American imperialism is the expansion of American political, economic, cultural, media and military influencing the boundaries of the United States. Depending on the commentator, it may include imperialism through outright military conquest; gunboat diplomacy; unequal treaties; subsidization of preferred factions; regime change; or economic penetration through private companies, potentially followed by diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened. As a Christian looking back on American History, this notion can be surprising or even upsetting, but these decisions weren’t specifically ours, rather they have been handed down to us. Today the US clearly says that it has claim to or owns this land, yet many will say that it wasn’t really ours to take. Much of the rest of the world doesn’t view American Imperialism much different than the rest of the empirical pursuits of the world history that were usually fueled by war and bloodshed. What if the Mexicans and the Indians want their land back, they owned it longer than we have and may have a legitimate claim to it. Can they establish a rightful claim to it? You have to think this way to justify Israel’s claim on the land in Palestine.
In this case Britain told the Jews they could have the land that was occupied by the Arab Palestinians and Jews. How would you feel if someone else said you no longer owned your home or land and told you that it has been given to someone else? You and I as Americans thinks this sounds preposterous yet that is what happened to those that occupied the land of Israel and Palestine and to an extent what we have done in America. There are peoples whose land was simply taken or given away.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, an organized religious and political movement known as Zionism (that I described at the beginning of this article) emerged among Jews. Zionists wanted to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Massive numbers of Jews immigrated to the ancient holy land and built settlements. Between 1882 and 1903, about 35,000 Jews relocated to Palestine. Another 40,000 settled in the area between 1904 and 1914. The problem was they were moving into a land that they wanted to claim, yet it hadn’t been theirs for at least 1300 years.
Many Jews living in Europe and elsewhere, fearing persecution during the Nazi reign, found refuge in Palestine and embraced Zionism. After the Holocaust and World War II ended, members of the Zionist movement primarily focused on creating an independent Jewish state. As you can imagine after the WWI and WWII there were a lot of Jewish sympathizers and perhaps there should have been! The problem became that Arabs in Palestine who had lived there for hundreds of years naturally resisted the Zionism movement, and tensions between the two groups continued. An Arab nationalist movement developed as a result.
In 1917 Balfour who was a British Christian Dispensationalist sought to begin establishing Israel as a nation which was part the Zionist movement. The Balfour Declaration and the British mandate over Palestine were approved by the League of Nations in 1922. Arabs vehemently opposed the Balfour Declaration, concerned that a Jewish homeland would mean the subjugation of Arab Palestinians. It didn’t seem “fair.” As I mentioned earlier; it doesn’t seem “just” that some would simply be told that their land and homes are no longer theirs.
The question a Christian needs to address is what does justice look like from the eyes of God? America went to war to win land, why would you view the Israel or the Palestinians trying to win land any differently? What about when women and children are killed? Is Israel any better in the eyes of God than their rivals?
According to USA TODAY, “The Hamas are the Islamic Resistance Movement political and military organization governing the Gaza Strip of the Palestinian territories. Headquartered in Gaza City, it also has a presence in the West Bank (the larger of the two Palestinian territories), in which its secular rival Fatah exercises control. Hamas is widely considered to be the “dominant political force” within the Palestinian territories. Hamas’ political wing has controlled the Gaza Strip for over a decade, but the group is most known for its many suicide bombings and other attacks on Israel amid the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has lasted decades. It’s considered a terrorist group by the United States and other nations. Hamas – an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya, or Islamic resistance movement – was founded in 1987 during the first Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by a Palestinian activist connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.” You might also consider how, as a Christian, you might view this group.
The British controlled Palestine until Israel became an independent state in 1947 after World War II. The United Nations approved a plan to partition Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state in 1947, but the Arabs rejected it (right or wrong.)
In May 1948, Israel was officially declared an independent state with David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, as the prime minister. While this historic event seemed to be a victory for Jews, it also marked the beginning of more violence with the Arabs.
Following the announcement of an independent Israel, five Arab nations—Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon—immediately invaded the region in what became known as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. This resulted in 7 months of war where Israel gained 77% of the land, not the 52% of the land they were supposed to have according to previous agreement. This resulted in 750,000 Palestinians becoming homeless refugees. As you can imagine, the Palestinians felt that Israel was acting against the armistice agreement and had stolen their land. Israel invited Jews from all over the world to move back to the newly acquired land and doubled their population (and army size) over the next three years. From an Israeli perspective, they were unlawfully invaded by Arab aggressors and rightfully gained land by military conquest, so their claims were justified based on modern definitions of land acquisition. But, as you can imagine, the Palestinians would see this differently.
Civil war broke out throughout all of Israel, but a cease-fire agreement was reached in 1949. As part of the temporary armistice agreement, the West Bank became part of Jordan, and the Gaza Strip became Egyptian territory. Numerous wars and acts of violence between Arabs and Jews have ensued since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War such as the Suez Canal, Six Day War, Yom Kippur War, the Lebanon War, First Palestinian Intifada, the Second Lebanon War, and Hamas Wars. Israel has been involved in repeated violence with Hamas, a Sunni Islamist militant group that assumed Palestinian power in 2006. Some of the more significant conflicts took place beginning in 2008, 2012, 2014, 2021 and 2023. Israel has basically been in and out of wars since they were recognized as a nation.
Clashes between Israelis and Arabs and/or Palestinians are commonplace. (As you can imagine it is difficult to identify all of the middle east groups and I am reluctant to group them or identify them together.) Key territories of land are divided, but some are claimed by several groups. For instance, both Palestine and Israel cite Jerusalem as their capital. Both groups blame each other for terror attacks that kill civilians. While Israel doesn’t officially recognize Palestine as a state, more than 135 UN member nations do. In October 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally declared war on Hamas following a surprise deadly assault launched from Gaza by Hamas militants.
You also might consider a morality/moral equivalency conversation here. After Hamas’s attack, is Israel obligated to agree to a cease-fire. Are they obligated to be certain that no civilians are killed and if civilians are killed, are they no better than Hamas? Is Israel’s occupation of the land the ultimate cause of all the killing? This article doesn’t necessarily warrant a conversation on biblical kingdom morality concerning defense but if you are considering all things in this war it needs to be considered.
When considering how a Jesus follower might view all of this conflict you may consider the religious affiliation of the Israeli population as of 2022 was 73.6% Jewish, 18.1% Muslim, 1.9% Christian, and 1.6% Druze. The remaining 4.8% included faiths such as Samaritanism and Baháʼí, as well as “religiously unclassified.”
OVERALL THOUGHTS & CONCLUSION:
As I started this article, I feel the need to re-emphasize my position. I am in no way anti-Israel or anti-Palestine (for that matter) as I am not anti-American in any way. I am anti-Hamas. There is good and bad in every nation, Christian and non, everywhere you look. Just because something started wrong, or off or grey, doesn’t mean it can’t be reconciled. Isn’t that what we are doing as Christians? You can’t judge everyone represented by the acts of a few people. To be clear I have no tolerance for evil on any side and it seems like there are a lot of atrocities going on that are pure evil, but most of the people involved are victims and that breaks my heart.
I certainly don’t agree with everything America (or any other nation) has done in their past (or make any concession to justify their current actions) but as a citizen of the nation of the United States I seek to do what I can to influence a broken system of peoples as I take on my kingdom role of representing or being an ambassador of the Kingdom of God (my primary consideration) and offer the healing power of Jesus. I will continue to model the beauty of this kingdom and offer consideration to anyone to join me in this obedient pursuit of Jesus and His beautiful plan that is captivated by loving God and others giving way to joy and healing even in the midst of tribulation both here and now which will eventually result in a recreated heaven and earth where all things are reconciled to Jesus.
As you probably know, I am for the kingdom of Jesus in every way with unwavering sole conviction to that state of living. My faithful pledge isn’t to any of the worldly systems or nations, just Jesus. I am glad that my political state of America allows me to worship Jesus but recognize that it isn’t promoting the kingdom of Jesus, but rather allows it. I have freedom to be a Jesus follower as well as be loyal to any other religion. As Christ followers we need to make sure that we are on Jesus’ side, not on the side of the rival nations of the world. We need to represent Biblical values, love, grace, peace, mercy, and justice, but understand it is God who ultimately rules and controls those powers throughout our world and the next. We represent the image of Jesus and invite others to join in a different kind of kingdom. We are the hands and feet of Jesus but ultimately all things will be reconciled by and to Him, perhaps much of this is out of our hands and we are simply asked to live within the New Covenant precepts the best we can wherever and however we can.
In terms of world politics and national strife, neither side, Israeli or Palestinian (Ukrainian or Russian) are nationally Christian. We tend to think of the Hamas as the worst entity involved and maybe they are or aren’t. Some of the acts of all of these groups have been detestable. There are likely Christians on every side as well as terrorists on all sides (they often call themselves freedom fighters because they are fighting for what was taken from them). As a Christian I can’t side with much of any of the violence. Even from a sense of justice it is the Lord’s not mine. I pray that being the hands and feet of Jesus doesn’t call my family into a war situation, but I am well aware that at some points of history this has been a decision by Christians that has had to be made. Perhaps we could decide to side with Israel as an American because America is in political alliance with them as long as the decisions don’t result in fruit that is against the Jesus kingdom. However, that statement seems impossible. This brings some other theological problematic concerns. Are we partnering with others out of the Jesus Kingdom? Many Christians would say that this is being unequally yoked. Should a Christian partner with the world?
Is God on Israels side? Throughout history Israel has denied God and specifically Jesus, far more than they have sided with Him. Statistically, America claims to be 70% Christian and Israel is less than 2% Christian, although I don’t feel as if America is very Christian living here. Perhaps these statistics aren’t comparing apples to apples though. I don’t see God aligning with the governments of America or modern national Israel. Israel seems to continue to be a rival to the kingdom of Jesus and for the most part I think America is heading in that direction as well. As Christians we pray to love our enemies and see them redeemed, so in this sense I urge you to pray for all of them.
Should we give any extra merit to a nation that once was Theocratic (thousands of years ago) but no longer is and clearly isn’t appealing to any sort of Christian following? I don’t think so. As Christians we need to align with those of the Jesus kingdom but at the same time pray to love our enemies and win them over to Jesus. Israel does claim as traditional Jews to worship the same God as Christians but as I have said earlier if you take Jesus out of the equation you’re out of the New Covenant and might even be against God if you can’t accept His Son as the Messiah.
There is no Biblical or “world” mandate for Israel laying claim to modern or ancient land. Nor does the Bible say that it is just for them to wage war to take it back. But the choices of these nations and others within the last century have perhaps made this complicated, just as there is no real rightful claim for land to be “claimed” by a Palestinian state or nation based on modern or ancient history either.
I do know one thing for sure, we can pray for the kingdom of Jesus and the world to be reconciled unto Him.
WIll Ryan Th.D.
SOURCES & NOTATION:
Special thanks to those that contributed to this article in a thought tank and red team review: Steve Gregg of the Narrow Path, Dr. Matt Mouzakis of X44, Nick Tenhagen, Dr. Steve Cassell, Pastor Steve Thorngate, Steve Bahr, Krista & Will Bensheimer, Jason Lee, and Josh Ruud. Please note that they do not necessarily share the views of the author and represent a very diverse mix of theological backgrounds.
The unity of the church is always on my mind. There seems to be more and more of the spirit of the world seeping into the body of Christ and the ways and attitudes of Babylon are taking root. There has been a movement of those who consider themselves defenders of the faith and discerners of the truth that ostracize and cast out those who don’t fit into their mold. I’ve noticed they have often failed to discern the attitudes and spirit of the world that they have aligned themselves with rather than walking in the Way of Christ by seeking to edify, build up, live in unity with diversity, and grow in Christ-formed maturity.
This week I’ve been reading through 3 John; it is a very small 15-verse letter in the back of our Bible that many of us probably have not given a ton of attention to (me included). It often doesn’t land on people’s favorite lists such as Romans, Philippians, or the Psalms. But this letter packs a punch in talking about unity through addressing attitudes of what John calls “evil” in the church. We have taught a series on the Seven Churches in Revelation and in that we saw that the major message from John there was regarding the ways of Babylon that have taken root in the churches in Asia Minor. Likewise, in 3 John, he writes about “evil”, in terms of worldly attitudes, that have seeped into the church.
John’s epistles were written to the churches in Ephesus. Church history tells us that John the Apostle was an elder here in his old age. In 3 John he is just called “the elder”. He was likely part of shepherding a network of house churches as well as other apostles and itinerant teachers. If you want our x44 take on what an elder is simply type elder into the search box to the right or search our Youtube channel. This sermon might also help.
In this letter there are 3 characters:
Gaius: Who is the recipient of the letter and likely an elder or leader at the church John is writing to.
Diotrephes: Who’s attitude is what the letter of 3 John is about. He was likely either an elder, leader, or teacher in this house church.
Demetrius: Likely a younger person in the church who is an example of walking in truth.
In this study we are going to look at the character of Diotrephes, specifically because I believe there’s some of his spirit in churches today. First, we need to look at how John contrasts his spirit against what John calls “walking in the truth”.
3 John 1-4
The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth. Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers. For I was very glad when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth. I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.
“Truth” is one of the central images in all of the Johannine writings (Gospel of John, 1-3 John, Revelation). Truth (aletheia) is used 45 times in these letters. The gospel of John begins saying that Jesus came full of “grace and truth” (1:14). Jesus says that John the baptizer testified to the “truth”, which was Jesus (5:33). And Jesus declares he is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (14:6). Thus, the truth is more than simply correct facts and interpretations- it is a person (Jesus) and a Way we are called to live. We could believe all the right things and have all the best interpretations of the Bible and still not be in the “truth”.
John describes the truth this way in 1 John 2:4-6:
The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
“Truth” in verse 4 is “knowing him” and this is defined by walking as Jesus walked in verse 6. The Greek verb for “walk” is peripateo and it is a Hebrew idiom translated into Greek. In Hebrew, it would be halach, which was used to express a way of life. In the first century this would have been the picture of the relationship of a disciple to their rabbi. In 3 John 3-4 truth is likewise described as more than walking in correct facts and interpretations but in walking in the character, behavior, and deeds of Jesus. John goes on to give some examples of this:
3 John 5-8
Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; and they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support such men, so that we may be fellow workers with the truth.
John shows that walking in the truth is in part about being faithful in your humble service to the brothers and sisters in Christ, living in a testimony/witness of love (1 Cor 13:4-7), and displaying hospitality to those in the church and strangers.
During the first century and following centuries there were prophets, apostles, and teachers who were itinerant and sent to edify and build up the churches in an area. The Didache is an early church writing dating around 100 AD and it is often called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It gives instructions on how to live as lights in the world and not to follow the ways and behaviors of the world in the first half of the writing. In the second half it gives instructions on different sacramental and functional items such as baptism, communion, welcoming these traveling ministers, and the attitude the body of Christ should have for each other in love.
In Didache chapters 11-13 it talks about welcoming traveling prophets and apostles. In this, it says to receive anyone who teaches in the way of increasing justice towards neighbor and knowledge of the Lord (Did. 11:2) and to receive them as the Lord for 1-2 days, but if they want to settle there they must work to support themselves and the community (Did. 11:3-7, 12:1-5). The way to test these teachers is based on deeds that are of the “conduct of the Lord” and teachings that are not of wicked men (Did. 11:1, 9). The whole section is focused on the behavior and attitude of the teachers because a true prophet must “walk out” what he teaches (Did. 11:8-12). The Didache is not part of the scriptural canon but it is well attested as something informative, trustworthy, and useful in the life of the early church.
We don’t have many traveling prophets or apostles today, most of our ministers and teachers are “in house”, but the same can be said in all of this regarding how we treat brothers and sisters in the body of Christ – both leaders (the mature in Christ) and the younger (less mature in Christ). We should display the truth through walking in love, in hospitality, looking at the fruit of faithfulness, and really centering ourselves on character and actions that reflect Jesus. This is really the core message of 3 John.
When we continue in this text we come to Diotrephes, who’s attitude is what this letter is mostly about or at least contrasted with.
3 John 9-11
I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.
As we mentioned above, Diotrephes was possibly a teaching leader, an elder in the house church with Gaius, or at least someone with some influence in the body of Christ in this church. John describes him as one “who loves to be first among them [and] does not accept what we say [teach]”. John Stott notes that word philoprōteuein (“to be first”) in the region of Asia Minor at this time “denoted two tempers which disturbed the Christian life of Asia Minor—intellectual arrogance and personal aggrandizement.”[1] It seems that Diotrephes is setting himself up as the guardian of truth in the church, seeing other teachers as rivals, and will only permit teaching that lines up with him, and doesn’t mess with his assumed authority as a teacher.
Now, correct beliefs and teaching are important, but approaching the scripture in humility is also essential. There are many people that believe things just because a pastor “told them so” or because it has been their tradition without without looking at the context of scripture, original languages, social and cultural meanings, historical interpretations, or how scripture interprets scripture, as well as being led by the Spirit in these textures of interpretation. I’m not saying we all need to have doctorate degrees in Biblical interpretation but we need to be humble in our approach to scripture as an ancient text written for us but not to us. We should use the tools available to us for research and consider the gifts in people who do this for the benefit of the church, as well as prayer and humbly seeking the Spirit to guide us. Humbleness and open mindedness combined with the leading of the Spirit are important when approaching the text. As we pointed out above, our beliefs and interpretations should lead us into Christlike behavior and attitudes. Producing spiritual fruit and attitudes is the proof of our “walking in the truth”.
Notice that John does not call out Diotrephes’ beliefs, teaching, or interpretation, but rather he calls out his deeds- his attitude. First, he says he “unjustly accuses people with wicked words”. The verb phlyarōn (accusing) means to “talk nonsense” in classical Greek. It conveys the idea that the words were not only wicked, but senseless. The noun phlyaroi in 1 Timothy 5:13 is translated “tattlers” in KJV and “gossips” in NIV. The NEB renders the phrase: “He lays baseless and spiteful charges against us”. Essentially this is defined as slander. Slander is “the action of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation or to make false and damaging statements about someone” (Oxford). In Proverbs this is one of the things the Lord hates the most:
Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things which the Lord hates,Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,And hands that shed innocent blood,A heart that devises wicked plans,Feet that run rapidly to evil,A false witness who utters lies,And one who spreads strife among brothers.
“False witness” here is a liar and slanderer. In Proverbs, and likewise with John, it is connected to evil and spreading strife in the community.
Diotrephes is not content with simply ruining ones reputation or making damaging statements, he has a threefold mission- 1) to not receive someone as a brother (labeling them as non-Christian or someone outside “his” community), 2) forbidding any who want this teacher welcomed in the church, and 3) a desire to cast this person and those who welcome that person out of the church.
In verse 11 John gives a summary on his thoughts on this behavior. He calls the deeds evil. John says that Diotrephes is walking in the way of evil and not the truth. In this he is encouraging Gaius and the rest of the church here to imitate the truth and not the deeds Diotrephes is walking in. A very serious line in scripture comes next in verse 11, “the one who does evil has not seen God”. Diotrephes is a part of the Christian community but His deeds show an alignment with things opposed to Christ’s Way.
John explains this in John 1:18:No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
“Explained” (exegeomai) is the Greek word we get “exegesis” from. Jesus has exegeted God- he has explained him through His life. What John is saying is that no one has seen the complete Way (truth) until Jesus’ incarnation. Hebrews’ author says it in this way :
Hebrews 1:1-3a
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature
The Hebrews are being encouraged to walk the way of Jesus because Jesus is what God has to say. He is the Word of God and also the exact representation (imprint/mark- charagma) of who God is and what God is like. When you see Jesus you see God. He is the one we are called to imitate, not the world. Jesus teaches us how to truly be human.
Jesus also points this out to Philip saying that his works (deeds) are the Father’s works and those abiding in him will do his works (and greater) too.
John 14:9-15
“Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
The one who has not seen Jesus has also not really seen God. The evidence of this is that they don’t walk as Jesus walked (1 John 2:4-6). They are not in the truth because they are not obeying the way (commands) of Christ. To “keep” these commands is not about legalistic box checking but about the transformation that comes out of loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. It is someone who has not progressed in transformation into the likeness of Christ- it is proof of spiritual immaturity. Paul explains this saying,
2 Corinthians 3:18
But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
The thing we look into we are transformed into the likeness of.
Diotrephes’ deeds are proof of the need to grow in the fruit of the Spirit in his life and of the fact he isn’t devotedly walking in the way of the truth. He seems to be walking more in the spirit of the World. Was he looking more into the world or Christ?
Paul speaks of this also to the Galatian church:
Galatians 5:15-26
But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.
Paul does not just list moral items but also attitudes and behaviors. The text says that when these fruits of the flesh are present we will devour one another (v15) and it flows from not walking and living in step with the Spirit. Instead it is rooted in boasting, challenges for higher honor, and envy (v26)- this is walking in the spirit of the world. If the church lets these attitudes of Babylon in the church it will result in destruction. This is the reason John says that when he comes he will address the “deeds” of Diotrephes, not just beliefs, teachings, and interpretations.
John concludes his letter with an acknowledgement of Demetrius connected to “what is good” (v11). Coming on the heels of talking about “the evil”, John is reminded of Demetrius when thinking about “the good”.
3 John 12-15
Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself; and we add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true. I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face. Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.
We don’t know much about Demetrius outside of his character and attitude. Interpreters speculate about him; many think he was a member of this congregation who was younger. This is interesting because John is pointing out that sometimes a “younger” can act more mature in Christ than an “older”. John’s main concern in this letter is concentrated on the attitudes and deeds in the church that reflect Christ.
Rather than being a “false witness” like Diotrephes, Demetrius is displayed as a good witness to the way of Christ. Martureo is the Greek verb for our English word to witness, to testify, and the noun martus is what we get martyr from.[2] This word is about being a representative of Jesus and also about giving a testimony or witness of something that you’ve seen and experienced- a whole life reflecting Him. Demetrius’ life is a good testimony/witness and it is summarized by John in three examples: 1) he is well spoken of and has a good reputation with the church, 2) he is confirmed by the truth itself (Jesus and the Spirit in him), 3) and John and the other leaders speak well of his life and witness. Demetrius lives in unity and harmony with the body of Christ in faithfulness, hospitality, and love- he is walking in the way of Jesus.
This study is not aimed at any one person in particular but rather about the attitude and spirit of the world that we’ve seen in the church that is hindering the witness of the church. The church needs to walk in the truth because if we do not walk in truth people will never believe the truth of the gospel. Notice that John seeks to correct the deeds or the spirit of Diotrephes and not cast him out of the community. He is seeking restoration and unity.
Here are some questions we should humbly ask ourselves and our churches:
What can we do to foster a community that walks as Jesus walked?
What steps do we need to take to stop devouring one another in the church?
How can we listen in order to understand instead of listening to just respond?
How can we build, edify, redeem, and restore instead of tearing down and casting out?
What are the attitudes of Babylon in me that need to be purged?
What are the spirits of Babylon in our church that need to be expunged so that we can walk in unity?
Lord help us live out the desire of our King- to live together in unity and love so that the world may know Him.
“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. “O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” (John 17:20-26)
How will the church of Jesus come to unity?
“There’s unity in the Spirit only in the graveyard of the flesh.”
[1] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 235.
Article written by Matt Mouzakis Th.D. (edited & postscript written by Will Ryan Th.D.)
POSTSCRIPT:
“keep them in Your name; those you gave to Me, that they may be one as We are.” John 17:11
Have you ever wondered why the church is often divided? Why do we argue over theological details and rather insignificant differences? Jesus used a Hebrew word, ‘ehad. Deuteronomy 6 introduces this word to describe the oneness of God, YHWH is one. Perhaps you have never considered this, but the Hebrew word signifies the constitutional covenant agreement with Israel or those that were given freedom and new life out of the Exodus, a covenant that covered everyone who is aligned in obedience with YHWH regardless of bloodline or their past. Later it would be the same under the teaching of Jesus as it continues to be true today. Everyone has their own journey or expedition, but we are united together under the name of YHWH. In Hebraic thinking, scriptural debate was welcomed and usually celebrated as something that would deepen faith. Later in the first century the church thrived and even became known and unified through these “Mars Hill” type of interactions. It is unfortunate that today (and throughout history) that many have used theology to divide the “oneness” of God rather than build the deeper faith of the church. Stimulate your mind. Challenge your perception. Grow deeper with Jesus.
“until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”Ephesians 4:13
The Greek word henoteta comes from a root that means “one”. You may remember that Jesus prayed for and emphasized this kind of unity in the Spirit. Ephesians continues Jesus’ theme as one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father. In the first century church Paul defines dissensions and schisms as missing the mark. Submission, humility and service, or taking on the mind of Christ is essential to be one in Christ.
Money is the root of all evil… right? That’s a very popular misquote of 1 Timothy 6:10 … or is it?
Some will correct me and say, well it’s actually the “love of money” according to scripture, but is that actually any different?
Perhaps a better verse is Hebrews 13:5
Let your way of life be free from the love of money, being content with what you have, for He Himself has said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.”
Following Jesus is a way of life. If you are a Christian, you are an exile and alien. I have a book called “this is the way” which is a word play off the Disney Star Wars Mandalorian series. it’s a consideration for when you have given your whole life towards something you always thought was right, later to find that maybe you were off a little bit…
How much do you give to the Lord?
In the classic Old Testament Hebraic mindset the answer should be, “all that you have been given.” In other words, everything is the Lord’s and should be given back to Him. You have simply been entrusted to the finances of the kingdom for a short time. This is the circular dance of grace. In our western thinking this is likely where we get the original audience’s interpretation of Biblical giving wrong… thinking that God just requires a tithe (confused with OT passages), or that there are no strings attached to Grace.
Is Grace free? Are there strings attached? I have a feeling some people are going to need to consider some deconstruction of what you might think the Bible says about money and giving and possibly even what the church has told you.
Grace is free but it also might have some strings attached. To be clear, Grace is totally free, but if you’re going to follow the Lord then you should follow the Lord with all that you are and have been given and freely give back all that you are and have been endowed with- which to some sounds like attached strings.
To most Americans the idea that God wants everything doesn’t sit very well. What would alter calls sound like if we told people the whole story before we asked them to put their hand up! We make it so easy to make a momentary decision to follow Jesus without truly calculating the investment. In a way the simple faith is beautiful and all you need to commit to Jesus; but in other regards, the covenant commitment should be approached with an allegiance that our current evangelical culture likely doesn’t spell out very well as they are rattling off the steps to salvation.
It even becomes more uncomfortable as Christian Americans when you ask somebody if they love money. Nearly every American does. That’s why Christians are so quick to try to explain how this verse means something different emphasizing the “LOVE OF” clause. Christian Americans are in a little bit of a wrestling match because they want to proclaim that they don’t love money; yet the giant mortgages, lifelong debt, and working around the clock every week say otherwise. It sure looks like we all love money, and that’s actually the implication of the scripture.
Is there really much difference to say that money is the root of all evil or the love of money is the root of all evil? In Biblical thinking it was basically the same. The complete cultural thought or mindset is perhaps better than the literal interpretation here. To those living next to me in America it would seem that one is essentially the same. If your life looks like you love money, you probably do and anything that separates you from complete devotion to the Lord is “EVIL” or “SATANIC.”
The word “love of money” is philarguros, literally, “a friend of silver.” This is a Greek verb that was used in the scriptural context to describe brothers and sisters of one body (which we like to call the church in present day language -that’s up for argument though.) I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen more destruction in “the church” than nearly anywhere else towards people. Of course, that doesn’t mean that I’m going to walk away from it either. Could this have been implied in this verse? But put the church aside and it’s interesting that we see this kind of destruction (tied to money) amongst family members as well. Seems like we have the hardest time getting along with our own family than anyone else, and at some point, your church should become your family. Seems the Biblical authors made this connection. Today, it would seem that money is root of more church problems and family dynamics than anything else I can think of.
So let me speak Greek for a moment. In Greek verb is the object of the action. The New Testament treats philarguros as coveting. Surely most Christians in America don’t covet money? And even worse churches don’t covet money, right?
One of my friends recently posted a picture that essentially said; “if the Bible says money is the root of all evil than why are so many churches asking for it.” Of course what followed was a discussion of how people are miss quoting the Bible… but my interjection is “are they?”
Don’t Christians in America want what everybody else has? Haven’t most of our churches made that a clear point? The church salaries and 401k’s should be equal to salaries and retirement packages within our world; the church building should be as nice as the finest of homes and business’? Was Solomon right in turning the tent tabernacle into a large edifice of gold? Did God smile on that?
Have I gotten under your skin yet? Shouldn’t Christian Americans have what everybody else has? Even though we are aliens in a foreign world, shouldn’t what the foreign world offers be part of our life as well? Can’t we also adapt this way of life as Christians? Can’t the exiles of Babylon have everything the new world has to offer without betraying their “lord?” This mindset is not within the thought of the biblical authors. In fact it’s the tragedy of the American entitlement mentality and Christianity.
-Perhaps the Amish had it right?
-perhaps the Essenes?
-how about those at Masada?
-the crusaders or reformers?
Yep this is messy and complicated. What did it mean in the culture that the Scriptures were written during “to be ruled by the love of money?” The scripture would seem to tell us it simply means to give more of your time, heart, and passion to something other than God… isn’t that every American I know?!
Essentially the Hebraic way of living is that your complete life is a gift. This gift is a reciprocal dance mirroring what God has given you. Total humility, complete giving back of what you have been given, and utter devotion to your Father.
In the hands of the follower of the Way, contentment is a sign of trust in the grace and mercy of God. From the biblical point of view, the only reason a man or woman can entertain contentment is because God is good. His provision is sufficient. Greed leads away from Him and towards the love of things of the world separating us from the Love of Christ.
Is money a necessary evil for a Christian? Is their kingdom money and worldly money? Does God not really care about the money? These are all great questions to this discussion.
You might remember when Moses asked God to enter the promised land God told him to be content with the answer. We typically think about contentment in the present sense, but this is God asking us to think bigger. The Hebrew form reminds us to think in future tense. Contentment is accepting God’s grace in the past, God’s gift today and God’s promise in the future. It’s a reciprocal dance and a way of life. It has very little to do with wealth, money, or entitlement.
Is the love of money or money itself the root of evil? I don’t really think it matters… what matters is that God wants all of us to mirror all of what God has given us. And from the biblical authors mindset money had very little to do with any of that kind of thinking. It is the posture of the heart.
If you have to ask the question, “is money or the joy of money the root of all evil?” Then you’re not thinking correctly (biblically) or probably living the kind of life God is asking you to live.
I have been into climbing for a long time. When I was in 8th grade (going into HS) our church hired a new youth HS pastor from Colorado named Steve Ledford that asked me and a friend to go to Devils Lake with Him to climb. I was athletic and had done some “bouldering” before but never been climbing on rope. That day my life changed, or was better, “influenced” forever. First Steve (although was later unfortunately let go by our church) went on to be one of my best mentors in life. I also went on to become a certified AMGA guide and climb more mountains than I can count including some of the largest in the world. But more importantly, I decided to dedicate a good part of my life to use the sport of climbing to introduce people to a better understanding of themselves and what God has for them. This last weekend a good friend of mine (Phil Reynolds) and I took our boys on an epic “climb” to learn some mountaineering basics and introduce them to some fundamental considerations of life. We took the time to share how every opportunity has the potential to shape your life and influence the lives of others, and how important it is to recognize and utilize these life moments.
It came about when the priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord had come up from the middle of the Jordan, and the soles of the priests’ feet were lifted up to the dry ground, that the waters of the Jordan returned to their place, and went over all its banks as before. Joshua 4:18 NASB
If you aren’t familiar with Hebrew, let me share something pretty basic about the language that you probably aren’t aware of, Stefan Schorch puts this best, “the Hebrew script is not able to record vowels, with the exception of the so-called vowel letters (matres lectionis), although the distinctiveness of a certain vocalization may carry important semantic information. As a result, the Hebrew Bible contains in fact a large number of words with different meaning, which had been homographs before the invention of the masoretic pointing.”[1]
Joshua 4:8 is a great example of the challenges that this has brought us in regard to interpretation. The verb used here means “to go up, climb, ascend” [עָלָה (ʿālâ)]. Notice the description in TWOT:
There are nearly 900 occurrences of the verb ʿālâ in the ot. The most common meanings in the simple tenses are “go up” (over 300 times), “come up” (over 160 times) and “ascend” (17 times). In the causative stems the two predominant meanings are “to bring up” (over 100 times) and “to offer” (77 times). The other 230 uses of the word are translated about 85 different ways in the av.[2]
To put this plainly, this single word in Hebrew takes on over 100 different English translations. Here is a list of some of the derivatives:
To many this is very confusing. How can the simple word for “climbing” in the Bible be translated in so many ways that often seem so far apart, possibly not even noticeably related when translated in English. This is why Biblical Hebrew is challenging to say the least. Context helps, but much of the older Hebrew scripture was guarded through oral handing down, that we have to simply take on a certain sense of trust with. In fact, the oldest written scriptures we have are at best from a few hundred years before the time of Christ yet represent “inspired writings” from what we like to think would have been original manuscripts lost many years before this but guarded and carried down (or up to us) by oral tradition. X44 is on a long video series on the church but when we finish, we will be unveiling perhaps the longest anticipated series yet on inspiration and inerrancy. This conversation will start to consider some of the points we will greatly consider in the upcoming X44 Youtube series on inspiration and inerrancy. But I won’t be getting much deeper into that today.
Many of our X44 readers know that the Masoretes decided when and where they would add the vowel points and I have to say alot rides on this and reads into our translations. Wikipedia would tell us that the Masoretes “were groups of Jewish scribe-scholars who worked from around the end of the 5th through 10th centuries CE. Each group compiled a system of pronunciation and grammatical guides in the form of diacritical notes (niqqud) on the external form of the Biblical text in an attempt to standardize the pronunciation, paragraph and verse divisions, and cantillation of the Hebrew Bible. The ben Asher family of Masoretes was largely responsible for the preservation and production of the Masoretic Text
So as if Biblical Hebrew isn’t hard enough to translate already, now that you know, you have to consider the fact that your English translation is highly influenced by this group of people that took the liberty to fill in a lot of blanks throughout the text. But this is me taking a second to teach Theology, let me return to my primary observation.
The Hebrew word “ala” in its most basic sense described what it meant to “CLIMB OR ASCEND.” In a Biblical sense the idea means that you are going to allow something to influence you or be the catalyst to influence others. Are you identifying and looking for a climb every day? Nearly every decision we make has the power to influence who we are and want to be before the Lord. We have the power to shape who we want to be or allow ourselves to digress based on the same process of influence.
This last weekend I led my boys and their best friends in life up a 900 foot egress of rock to a pinnacle where we camped on the top and firsthand watched the majestic splendors of the cosmos declared to the Lord. We also were steps from imminent death with one misplaced foot or handhold. This expedition will influence them forever. The Biblical words for climb mean so much. They describe how we learn, how we heal, how we stretch ourselves, and determine our pathway and live in spiritual balance. The words embody the course that is given to the Lord spiritually at nearly every decision and the allegiant obedient faith that characterizes the covenant relationship that we walk in each and every day.
How is your climb going? Are you each and every day considering where Jesus will lead? Are you approaching life as an open ascent to the cosmos that has been given to you? Do you see yourself as a shepherd guide to mentor others in this? If you haven’t figured it out with the over 100 different interpretations, THIS IS THE WAY.
[1] Stefan Schorch, “Dissimilatory reading and the making of Biblical texts: the Jewish Pentateuch and the Samaritan Pentateuch”, in Raymond F. Person, Jr. and Robert Rezetko (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (SBL Press, 2016), p. 113.
[2] Carr, G. L. (1999). 1624 עָלָה. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 666). Chicago: Moody Press.
[3] Carr, G. L. (1999). 1624 עָלָה. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 666). Chicago: Moody Press.
Some guys are into golf, or hunting, or sports… I am into all of those things but my passion for Jesus and discipleship is not only my life mission but the joy of my life that outweighs everything else and that philosophy not only “filters” into everything else in life, but actually drives them.
MY HISTORY WITH SOCCER
I played club soccer when I was young in the 90’s and played at my small Christian High School leading them to small school “state” twice. My nickname was “the beast” which was given to me at the Christian school I attended, and I am sure had some theological undertones as that was when every Christian kid was reading Frank E. Peretti‘s “this present darkness series.” I had several scholarship offers to play at secular colleges but went on to play at Moody Bible Institute instead (as I had a clear spiritual calling on my life that I identified at an early age) and was part of the national championship team in 1993. I only played in college for a year and decided to “go professional.” I had played previously in friendlies with the Milwaukee Wave which opened the door to an invitation to join the Chicago fire during their inaugural year with the MLS in 1998 but turned them down (because I would have been the youngest person on the team and likely wouldn’t have seen any playing time) to go play soccer in Europe for Conway United. I played a few practice matches with the Fire before I left for Wales and was glad to have been a small part of the organization during the year that they went on to win both MLS Cup ’98 and the 1998 U.S. Open Cup Final, both in a five-day timespan. Since those days I continue to be part of the soccer world. I’ve been a licensed soccer referee for over 30 years and am a well credentialed coach at nearly all levels. I still play regularly and plan to play until the day I die. All four of my boys have been raised with a ball at their feet since they could walk and have played in club and with the local Christian schools.
MT ZION AND SOCCER
My wife and I have coached at the small local Christian school (that is connected with Mt Zion, the church we attend) in our town since my oldest son Ty was old enough to play for them. My wife and I have built this program from day one around Jesus. Mt Zion Soccer has a reputation for character development and discipleship. Our (only) goal is to build and impact lives positively for Jesus. I have very little concern if we win or lose but the journey that we will travel together for the kingdom – surprisingly we have won our conference nearly every year and were undefeated last year (funny how kingdom principles work that way). One of the things our program has been known for is teaching encouragement. Each practice we encourage the kids to speak 44 words of encouragement to others as well as other kingdom principles. We will regularly have devotions at practice, but in a sense, the entire practice is devotional. We make it our personal goal as coaches to have at least one strategic or purposeful interaction with each student at every game and practice. We asked a well experienced husband and wife couple named Israel and Ivanna to join us coaching. Their sole job was to individually coach each kid. Israel is a soccer expert and coached skill while Ivanna took it on herself to simply encourage and build up with words and build relationships at every opportunity.
As a sidebar, my good friend Steve Cassell regularly says club sports are “the devil” in his favorite “waterboy” accent and I have to largely agree with him. They regularly remove people from the local church culture community. Keep Jesus first and don’t compromise. Your kids are watching.
BE DILIGENT
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NASB You likely have the verse above memorized, but let’s rethink it. Be diligent –in Greek this word is Spoudazo.
That’s the word for this soccer season, it is actually where we get the English slang word “Spaz.” In its original language it implied a lot. Be diligent. Be eager. Be earnest. Be steadfast. Be immovable. Be consistent. Be kind. Be strong. Be loving. Be generous. Be energetic. Be relentless. (And so much more) …but in all of these be devotional & diligent unto the Lord.
We usually think of this verse in terms of academics. I remember growing up in Awana, this was the “STUDY” verse. But today, as I so frequently do on x44, I want to challenge you to deconstruct some of the poor theological presumptions you may have been given over the years about this verse. Paul isn’t telling us to memorize everything (although He may believe that as a Torah observant Jew that likely has the entire law memorized) – but this, in context, is not what this verse is about.
Hermeneutically, he is encouraging “being the person God approves.” Be diligent to present yourself, not your cognitive ability.
Study is certainly important, but it isn’t the goal. The goal is the person, completed in Christ. And that is the goal of our soccer season and very much our personal parenting and life coaching season!
We are coaching to focus on the “perfected” work of Jesus. We are focusing on overcoming, seeking victory, building up others, exercising and developing our spiritual giftset, and truly taking on the mind of Christ.
The verb Paul uses that we interpret as “accurately handling” is literally “cut correctly” (orthotomeo). This is sculpting language. The temple was fit and formed together like a puzzle without any fasteners. This image takes on the idea of that sense. Paul wrote in Greek but was thinking in Hebrew & that perspective is about doing, not just thinking, we see that the workman produces nothing if he only thinks about it. That the final result of things fitting so well in the kingdom is very much about the final result. Last year the Mt Zion school theme was to be a doer, the craftsman has to put his skills to work to produce the intended result. Being well intended or good hearted is great, but the kingdom calling is towards the final result of being fully formed by Jesus. Jesus’ discipleship was about the finished work, and that was a “here and now” statement not an eschatological “someday.” We have to put God’s words to work in our lives to produce the intended result – a finished workman for the work we are made and designed to do TODAY. The temple being fit and formed was just a foundational piece to the work that was supposed to have been done through it for the kingdom.
The objective of our life “expedition” is to become the master craftsman of ourselves through Jesus. Our goal is to be in continual production of a person approved by God. The “material” can actually be nearly anything in life.
This season we are going to get “cut” for Jesus. The goal is to become in peak spiritual condition and along the way we are going to learn the game of soccer, fine tune our skills, get physically fit, find the balance of life and become the best we can be in every measure; all the while well having as much fun as we can! Encouragement is going to “shape” our season!
X44 has a lot of slogans that we are reclaiming. For instance, “into the storm” has been borrowed by some with far-right political agenda’s but was first coined as a phrase in the first century of complete discipleship. We have an article on this. Another slogan we are taking back is “BURN THE SHIPS.”
Most people recognize the phrase “burn the ships” to be associated with Cortes, the great Spanish explorer who destroyed his entire fleet upon reaching the destination of his “mission”. Landing at present-day Veracruz, Mexico in 1519, he destroyed his ships so that when the going got rough his men would have no means of retreat. It was do or die trying. No going back, only pressing on. It was an act of total devotion to the mission they believed God had called them to.
There are likely a few things about this story that may surprise you. You might have guessed, that like so many Middle Ages pursuits of the day, part of the reason why this story is described as a “mission” was based on the need to evangelize the lost. Whether you’re describing the crusades, or likely any endeavor tied into governmental acquisition it was often done in the name of the Lord, right or wrong. In this sense, Cortes was thought to be on a mission from God. You might also be surprised to know that despite the well-known phrase “burn the ships” which has long been associated with Cortes, He didn’t actually burn the ships, he just “scuttled” or dismantled them beyond use. So why do we say he “burned the ships?” This phrase and action was actually pretty common to his day. It was often ordered and taken figuratively as an “ALL IN” or no turning back statement.
Agathocles of Syracuse in 310 BC, Emperor Julian in 363, William of Normandy in 1066 are likely better examples of people that actually “burned the ships” in the same regard (there are many others who did this, see the list below). Regardless, the idea started, or should have started and came to fruition anyway, with Israel and the Exodus. Not so much with “ships” but the idea of no turning back. It’s a great message and an attitude for which every Christian should strive to emulate. Christ calls us and calls us fully. complete discipleship means we are to die (or live in humble self-sacrifice) to everything else and live fully for the one who has given Himself for us through the giving of His life and asks us to live in the same way.
Some Historians question the motives of Cortes. Was he a man of God and all in for the kingdom? I believe so. I would actually say, perhaps more so than most of us are today. As you consider what it means to be “all in” for discipleship, consider the story of Cortes a bit more closely and what it really meant to “burn the ships.” Would you leave everything in the name of discipleship? Many of us say we will but not nearly to this extent.
Cortés made a special request in his letters to the emperor for special powers to be granted for evangelization and discipleship of his crew. He sought the powers for the Franciscans because his people and the natives were “so far from the proper remedies of our consciences,” but he feared the damage normal clerics may cause. [1] Cortés is shown in the writings of Díaz del Castillo, who was with him on the conquest, to have regularly and publicly given speeches and thanks to God to encourage the conversion. One such example is recounted in thorough detail in the Historia Verdadera, Vol. 2, Chapter 77, where Cortés is personally attempting to convert the Tlaxcalans. He is recounted as explaining the mission of the Spaniards to convert the natives and end human sacrifice. He also showed deference to the priest, Father de la Merced, which enabled the Spanish to obtain from the Tlaxcalans a newly constructed temple for Our Lord.[2]
The spiritual aspect of Cortés’s conquest was far more important than the terrestrial aspect. The gods of the Aztec peoples along with those in the remainder of Mexico demanded cruel and regular sacrifices. The Aztecs diligently provided them in cooperation and in conflict with their neighbors, and they have stood out as one of the most brutal empires in the history of the world. Thousands were offered up to the gods every year, including women and children. Sounds a bit like abortion in the US.
The conversion of the New World started with the order from Cortés to scuttle his ships and take over the nation. His passion for the conversion to Christ led Bartolomé de Las Casas, a Dominican friar, to write: “Through this captain, God opened the door for us to preach his holy gospel, and it was he who caused the Indians to revere the holy sacraments and respect the ministers of the church.”[3]
The term “burn the ships” adopted by Cortés reminds us that the Jesus’ challenge is to commitment for life. There is no turning back. God calls His disciples to be “all in.”
[1] Cortés, Hernán. Hernán Cortés: Letters from Mexico. Translated and edited by Anthony R. Pagden. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1971. Letter IV. Page 333.
(1) One account of the Danaan invasion of Ireland has it that upon landing, they burned their ships, causing a great mist to rise up and terrifying the inhabitants who thought the Danaans arrived in a cloud.
(2) In Book V of the Aeneid, the Trojan women attempt to burn the ships after they arrive on Sicily, but a rainstorm thwarts their plans.
(3) In 351 BC, Sidon rebelled against Ochus, the King of Persia. They burned all the ships in the harbor to prevent anyone from fleeing. When it became clear that the city had been betrayed and the Persians were entering, they set fire to their own homes and the entire city was obliterated.
(4) In 296, the Praetorian Prefect, Asclepiodotus, commanded an army belonging to the emperor Constantius Chlorus, and led it against the usurper Allectus. Having arrived in Britain to confront Allectus, Asclepiodotus burned his own ships to prevent his men from retreating.
(5) In 363, Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome invaded Persia. After his army crossed the Tigris he had all the pontoons and barges burned so there would be no thought of going back.
(6) In 711, Tariq ibn Ziyad, for whom Gibraltar is named, landed there, burned his ships and embarked on the conquest of Spain.
(7) Some accounts claim that William the Duke of Normandy burnt his ships on arriving in England in 1066.
(8) In 1169, a group of about 250 English freebooters under the bastards Robert Fitz-Stephen, Meiler Fitz-Henry, and Meiler Fitz-David, along with a vassal of king Henry, named Hervey Montmorency, raided Wexford, and having been repulsed they were so ashamed, they burnt their ships and determined to succeed or die trying.
(9) Hernando Cortez supposedly burned his ships in 1519 to prevent anyone returning to Cuba and reporting his mutiny to the Spanish governor there, but most historians would dispute this.
(10) According to a book published in 1689, which purported to be the journal of a pirate named Raveneau de Lussan, he at one point led his men across the isthmus of the Americas through Honduras after first burning their ship to prevent anyone from defecting.
(11) In 1779, during the celebrated battle between John Paul Jones and the English ship of the line, Serapis, rather than flee or surrender Jones desparately kamikazeed his sinking ship into the Serapis and captured it va banque.
(12) In 1789, sailors serving on the HMS Bounty under the notorious Captain Bly mutinied and sailed to Pitcairn Island where they burned the Bounty.
If you are familiar with X44 at all you know we don’t shy away from tough topics. You also know we aren’t overly concerned with any reasons for believing or following something other than what the Bible instructs. In theology there are “good” views and poor views. A good view shows that something lines up according to the textures of hermeneutics within the overall lens of scripture. A poor view means that something is a stretch or doesn’t really hold water when examined by itself or in the context of the rest of scripture. Sometimes we say you have to do a lot of theological gymnastics to make a view like that work, which isn’t a compliment.
In the case of looking at homosexuality there are many “poor” theological views. For instance, I hear a lot of people say things like, “if the Bible were written today in this culture, it would likely take a different stand on homosexuality.” That is a poor view. The Bible is timeless. I also hear that civilization has evolved or advanced and that homosexuality is a more advanced view of “loving everyone” especially in regard to what a finished or recreated heaven and earth looks like where there doesn’t seem to be a place for gender. As this statement has some considerational merit; it still represents a poor theological view because it stands in stark disagreement with other parts of scripture. I will address this view more in a moment. I also hear people say something like, “the Bible hardly addresses the subject.” That may or may not be true, but there are several statements on homosexuality that give us a clear course. Furthermore, theologically you can’t completely discount something because there isn’t a lot of it.
Sometimes you hear me use the term “minor view” within the context of theology. A minor view means most theologians believe something else, but there is a contingency of well thought scholars that believe the Bible teaches one of the less predominant views, doctrines, or ideas. I hold a few of these views. As an example, one of them is a view on hell called conditionalism over the much more commonly held view of Eternal Conscious Torment. However, it is important to point out that most theologians primary reason for holding a certain view is always because they believe either the Bible better defends the view, or that it fits better into the overall narrative of the Biblical message. In other words, a minor view is held because you think the actual scripture best supports the view. There isn’t another valid reason for holding a minor view. In this case the view that homosexuality is sin before the Lord is the predominant or major view of theologians and Christianity, it is difficult to find a “minor view” that agrees with scripture.
According to the overall story and message of the Bible, the Torah, and Jesus, let’s explore what the scripture actually teaches about following the Lord and homosexuality. In other words, we aren’t really addressing opinion, we are addressing what the Bible says.
The Bible doesn’t say nearly as much about the topic of Homosexuality as people want it to. I often say that wasn’t the primary intent of scripture, but it is some of the message for us. It does clearly address the topic. Gen. 19: 1-13; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10 are the primary passages that prohibit homosexuality. But the rest of the Bible also speaks to the subject as Greg Boyd [1] puts it, “the entire biblical narrative presupposes that sex is supposed to take place between a man and a woman in the context of marriage (Gen. 2:23-24). The Biblical definition of “sin” is “missing the mark” (hamartia), and on the basis of this scriptural evidence, I have to regard homosexuality as “missing the mark” of God’s ideal. So yes, I regard homosexuality to be a sin.” I would encourage you to read Greg’s take on this subject as well which X44 would agree with. (See end note.)
Lastly (before I really dive in), I don’t know of any Theologians that I would typically say have good theological perspectives that take a different view on this subject. Even the more “liberal” or forward thinking possibly even “progressive” theologians that interpret the Bible for all that it is worth would largely agree with this article. There are small debates that I find interesting, such as the idea that “if in a recreated heaven and earth situation there is no gender shouldn’t we practice this kind of love here and now?” as I alluded to above. As I love this discussion, the blatant problem with that thought in particular (and many like it), is that the Bible clearly says that here and now that “act” would be sin in the eyes of God. I don’t see things being contrary to his word in Heaven. The other problem is that thought pattern falls off logically and theologically in terms of sexuality that is confined to earthly realms. We don’t know exactly what “love” looks like in the fulness of God’s plan and would be wrong theologically to assert “our plan or idea” as part of God’s. Consideration is one thing, forming a doctrine is another. We simply don’t have the writings (we don’t have the cards, we weren’t given that book, that isn’t the primary intent of those passages, and we don’t have the right to read anything into them) or the understanding to “see” what the recreated heavens will reveal in terms of love between each other. But if I have learned anything in my studies, it is that the thoughts of humanity are usually far from the thoughts of the Lord God Most High (אֵל עֶלְיוֹן). Usually, the way we think God should do things is a far Cry from His divine Will.
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22
Perhaps the most quoted verse in this arena is Leviticus 18:22. American and other prevalent worldly culture would have us believe in the right to “love” whomever you wish. Often if you don’t view “love” in this “open” sense you are considered archaic or bigoted and repressive by those that do. However, when reading this verse in Leviticus it is difficult to argue anything other than that the cultural/Biblical view of the early Biblical authors clearly forbid homosexuality and the practice is described as an abomination. The Hebrew word used for abomination is the word to’evah and is best translated “a thing of horror.” The context is that if you are practicing this act, you become abhorrent to God and righteousness. I think it is important to break this down. To be clear, homosexuality isn’t condemned in this passage or others because it is harmful to the body (although that may be true), or because it is self-absorbed (and therefore contrary to scripture and also true), or because it is violent (which might also have a case in scripture); but in determining the exact forbiddance here textually it is prohibited as Feinstein notes because “is at its core an appeal to the emotions.”[2] At first this seems too simple and watered down. But think about it for a moment, that is often the simple beauty of the scripture. The idea of homosexuality in Leviticus causes an emotional reaction of horror because it is so counter cultural to the Yahweh covenant governing pure undefiled relationships. It is exactly opposite of what God has designed you for. Today homosexuality is no longer abhorrent. It is just “another choice,” there is no emotional disturbance. We aren’t Israel. We are Babylon and in Babylon lots of things no longer make us sick.
If you are interested in my in depth take on this passage, I would have to say I land very closely to my old friend (RIP-SHALOM) from UW Madison where we studied Hebrew together, Michael Heiser. You can follow his discussion here. [3]
To be completely unbiased, if the passages in the OT were the only passages that condemned homosexuality I might be on the fence on the subject. The reason I say this is because parts of the Torah I believe are still “best practice” or God’s “ideals” for us as Christ followers, but not everything in the “law” can or is likely intended to be followed under the new covenant. How do you know or choose? That question has taken me a lifetime to personally analyze and enact in our family. The fact that Jesus fully kept the law, and we are to “follow” Jesus continues to make this a personal challenge to everyone. Most people aren’t going to question that the New Testament confirms what the Old Testament says about Homosexuality. Perhaps the only “angle” contrary would be those that interpret the stance of Paul to be anti-homosexual conveying his personal beliefs but not being indicative of the rest of the New Testament. To most Christians this view would be heretical, but possibly a consideration to those with that “open” of a theology. This leaves you asking the question, “what did Jesus Himself conclude about Homosexuality?” To be clear Jesus maintained Torah law but not Rabbinical law, in other words it seemed Jesus aligned with Levitical law in my opinion. But I will come back to this as well.
1 Corinthians 6:9 arsenokoitai Greek “homosexual”
Arsenokoitai is the Greek word most frequently translated as homosexuality. It is a bit vague, but not as vague as some modern-day articles would have you think. Sometimes it takes on a more word for word translation of “abusers of themselves with mankind” or “them that defile themselves with mankind”. One of the million dollar questions is why do translators choose to translate the way they do? There are a lot of “not so great” translations that are based on the cultural norms or political lean of the 16th or 17th centuries which marks the basis of most of our translations, or perhaps we could discuss a word for word vs contextual thought pattern of interpretation. This is a great discussion that will come into play here, but most of that conversation I will leave for a different article or the long anticipated X44 YouTube series on inerrancy so many of you are waiting for us to do after we complete the seemingly never-ending church series! But at any rate, this Greek word is a case where I think we can dive in and do better in terms of translation, as I said above, we actually have a very clear path linguistically to follow.
Most Greek words can be easily rendered by breaking down the word itself. Greek works like building blocks of smaller parts of words to create a larger word that encompasses all of the thoughts of the smaller parts. This word comes from arsen (a Greek word for “male”) and koite (“to lay down for rest or sleep, but figuratively, the marriage bed or marriage itself”). I hate to point this out, but we get the word “coitus” from this Greek root which leaves no room for interpretation that this is anything other than inferring sexual intercourse. I will also note that within 2nd temple period extra Biblical source we don’t have to search very hard to find the same renderings. When this was written, homosexuality was rampant in Rome. 13 of the 14 Roman Emperors were homosexuals. This verse is clearly saying that those who practice the act of homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God and are deceived as the practice is evil. This culture norm within the earthly empire was completely opposite to the kingdom of Jesus. Furthermore, the implication is that if you choose to follow Jesus you must leave this act behind, it has no place within the sacred undefiled temple of the Lord which is now, under the New Covenant your very body and being. You are a representation or ambassador of this Jesus kingdom and can’t serve two masters. Your commission and very purposeful design is to represent. And in case you are wondering if there is any chance this is just a singular text or idea that could simply be the thought of Paul personally, or mis-represented over the years in translation or scribed error, Romans 1:27-29 reiterates nearly the exact idea using the same and slightly different words which is a common Biblical way of making sure we received the correct message. Whether you put Paul as the author of Romans or not, the authors knew that God condemned homosexual intercourse from the time of Abraham and the New Testament writings are in alignment with those thoughts hundreds/thousands of years later. God didn’t change His stance on this, and He isn’t going to.
NT Wright would assert, [4] “He [Paul] sees the practice of same-sex relations as a sign that the human world in general is out of joint.This out-of-jointness, he says, is the result of God allowing people to follow lust wherever it leads—once they have lost their grip on God’s truth and, like Adam and Eve in the garden, listened to the voice of the creature rather than the voice of God…“
To be clear this isn’t an argument over habit, or genetics; it likely is connected to the fallen world but God isn’t overly concerned with how it came to be, as much as He is concerned about the Exodus of it and deliverance back into the reclaiming of your original undefiled design to be holy and pure before the Lord. We may enjoy and be used to practicing sin in our former ways, but once you make an allegiant decision to follow the Lord you are making a decision to abide by what God says is holy and take steps towards being a completely “remade” and “renewed” person putting away the desires and activities of the world and becoming like Jesus. In this regard Homosexuality should be treated like any other sin (and in some cases a sexual sin against your body specifically) – we are called to completely stop and pray that God remove it from our remaining “human” being as we are transformed into the process of becoming a “spiritual” being preparing for eternity in a new Heaven and Earth. Perhaps everyone still sins each and every day, but hopefully not willfully. A healthy Christian makes a decision based on Jesus in their life to not continue to give in to the sin of the world. It is one thing to occasionally fall into sin, it is another to willfully continue to live and walk in that sin. The Bible says we are to cut such things out of our lives and be agents of helping other like-minded believers to do the same. This is a major tenet of discipleship.
In this sense, homosexual acts should be considered similar to other sinful acts. The only consideration to which the Bible places some sins differently than others is in terms of sexual sins to be against your body which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. By this, scripture seems to imply that sexual sins carry more implications of recovery and/or repercussions than others might. Homosexuality sins may or may not be in this nature. Not every homosexual sin is sexual. When someone first makes a decision to follow Jesus they only “begin” the journey to be delivered. This is the road to sanctification and isn’t completed until the recreated heavens and earth are established fulfilling our design to partner with the Lord. Some on this earth will get closer than others and your path is between you and the Lord and frankly no one else. But we are indeed moved and called by scripture to give up the former passions of our earthly desires and be transformed into the new remade purpose that God has for us. To be frank a mature believer should be living nearly completely redeemed. As we will never live without the effect of sin while we are in this world, God is calling us to live in freedom and redemption separated from sin and indwelled with the Spirit.
Is there any other room for more “open” theological interpretation?
Personally, as I affirm above, I don’t think there is. I could go through all of the scriptures I mention at the beginning of the article (and in a video I would), but I think the Bible is pretty clear in this area. However, I would recommend Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church (ed. Preston Sprinkle). The problem of any other view is that it is going to have to render the clear portions of scripture a different way. This is what I started the topic as saying requires some theological gymnastics that most Christians scriptural interpreters aren’t comfortable with.
In my mind, you are left with three options:
1. Repent and repair (reparative therapy) -Pray that Jesus truly Heals you and gives you freedom from Sin. This is what I truly believe is offered to us. Reparative therapy isn’t always good. It has been unfortunately the source of much trauma and abuse in the church and continues to be a catalyst used often for more harm than good. However, Jesus is the master healer. If all things point to Jesus in terms of healing and reparative therapy, you have the right idea.
2. Accept and refrain (celibacy) -Eventually all things will be made new, but until God does that work in you, you respectfully refrain. I have some room for this view, in a way, isn’t this what we are called to do largely anyway? Abstinence is often the best policy to start the healing process. It seems to be part of the step to attain total healing. This is a large part of what it means to live in humble devotion. However, there are other considerations, celibacy is a contranym in scripture. Is it a blessing or a curse? Thats is up to you and Jesus. It can go either way.
3. Accept and affirm what you want to believe (i.e. the Bible gets it wrong): for those who are genuinely gay, something Paul does not believe in, Paul’s teachings (and the Torah) do not apply. I don’t even consider this a “poor theological view”, it is not even a “theological view” in my opinion. To take this view you are saying you simply do not believe the Bible is timeless or still true today. Most Christians logically and theologically can’t or perhaps shouldn’t allow themselves to get here. I typically call this “building your theology on anything” and it isn’t Biblical. -I don’t care that it’s wrong. I don’t care what God says. I’m going to “do that thing THEOLOGY.” Perhaps as I earlier alluded to, some are ok with throwing out Paul’s theology and simply removing Him from the authority of scripture. I can’t do that personally (or hermeneutically) whether I “like” his demeaner or not. To continue to live in what the Bible describes as “sin” would not appear to most devout followers to be a “Biblical” choice.
Jesus would love the sinner
I believe the “Christianese” 21st century plan of loving the sinner but not the sin hasn’t been lived out very well by the church. The church in general has identified what the Bible says about loving others but hasn’t fulfilled it through love in action. Brian Zahnd would say, ” The church is being challenged to act like Jesus. Held accountable for not sounding like Jesus. And losing a generation who wants to follow Jesus.” The image of this article sort of conveys much that I dislike about our Christian culture. We say we love them and eagerly desire to show them God’s love to restore them to a better view and true understanding of Biblical love, but our actions typically are far from conveying that heart. We need to do better. I can’t stand to be in the midst of most anti-homosexual “Christian” circles. They make me sick to my stomach, their anti-love of Jesus sentiment abhors me in a Levitical way. The un-Godly pronouncement over the LGBTQ community by Christians is often as bad as the homosexual sin itself. Treating others this way is counter to what Jesus taught.
It should go without needing to be said that if you are a faithful follower of Jesus and one that seeks to disciple (and we all should), then part of your calling is to lovingly reveal the truth of the scripture to those that may not see. Be the hands and feet of Jesus and shepherd people to the understanding of the scriptures and guide them to truth in Jesus.
Let me say to those of you who struggle with Homosexuality that I love you and so does Jesus. I don’t despise you, and I certainly do not think you are a terrible person or can’t be reconciled to the Love of God. This is not a difficult statement for me or hard for me to empathize with or imagine; in fact, so much that many around me might actually think I am “ok” with homosexuality or wonder if I think it is sin at all. To be honest when other Christians ridicule me for my “acceptance” of the LGBTQ cultures I count it as gain before the Lord. Jesus would have met them at the well, at the table, and at the mountain and so will I. Trust me, my kids know the Bible says homosexuality is sin, but also know how Jesus interreacted with the sinner. You can’t pick and choose what you like about Jesus, your just called to be a representative or physical manifestation of Him to everyone that you interact with. Too many Christians don’t look much like Jesus, but I pray that I and my family do.
What does Jesus actually say and do and what about Paul?
Theologically Jesus “perfected” or gave clarity of the Father to the World. So, what does Jesus say here? Jesus made no explicit statement about Homosexuality. In one regard we think He should have, but we don’t get to decide what we are given. Jesus never said anything explicit about abortion, same-sex marriage, or child molestation. But it would be an incredible claim to conclude from that fact that Jesus’s teaching is irrelevant to our ethical assessment of those issues. The lens of the Bible and Jesus’ message are coherent and in unison. Jesus kept all of the Torah (this is different than rabbinical, man-made law) and asked that we live by his example.
Jesus did speak explicitly about many things such as sexual immorality and the nature of marriage. He denounced the former (e.g., Matt. 5:28; 15:19) and defined the latter according to Genesis 2:24: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh” (Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7–8). Jesus affirmed the covenant.
Some might say that Paul’s teaching applied only to his culture and has little bearing on ours today. One of the first textures of any hermeneutical approach is to first determine the message to the intended audience and how they would have interpreted that message within their culture. Then you decide how and if you can apply it to your personal situation. The “mistake” too many people commit is to attempt to “throw away” or “write off” anything they don’t like on the basis of culture. Theologically and hermeneutically these conversations walk on this ice. Are you throwing away inerrancy and inspiration? It’s true I would likely define inerrancy and inspiration differently than most evangelical Christians would (that series of films on x44 is coming soon); but make no mistake, proper Biblical interpretation doesn’t disregard major thematic messages that are reiterated throughout scripture. A good Theology is working through a consistent agreement within the lens of the Bible.
Jesus and Paul aren’t in a “cage match” or at odds over ethics. To split them is to split the Torah and the message of God to His people. The OT can’t be severed from the New. If you view Jesus as peace-loving, enemy-forgiving, egalitarian, and inclusive with regard to homosexuals and align Paul as war-loving, death penalty–supporting, patriarchal, and exclusionary with regard to homosexuals (these are terrible Pauline views imo) you have some deep-rooted theological issues that I would propose can’t work together under a proper view of the complete word of God. Your theological lens is a mess. I would encourage you to dive deeper to reconcile your thoughts. Dr. Matt and I have gone to a great deal of Research through the Expedition 44 Youtube Channel to show others a better view. I would caution anyone to throw out the black letters of the Bible and/or even position them as subservient to the red letters. They all point to Jesus.
To those that struggle with Homosexuality.
My big question to a Christian struggling with LGBTQ temptation is, “Are you divinely interested in what God’s word says?” You might not accept how Christians in general act today (I don’t either), but are you willing to place your “trust-faith” in Jesus and what He asks of you? Are you interested in what God desires for you and entering into the covenant commitment that He asks of those who follow Him as Disciples?
We all sin and we are all broken as a result of broken relationship with the Lord and the mucked up world. You have been given the chance to be redeemed, to be delivered. Set your face to say, “My heart and core is broken, I wish I weren’t. I can choose to turn my brokenness into sin and live in redemption and freedom in the power of Jesus.” You can choose to live as the Bible asks you and to be consecrated before the Lord. Find a tribe, a community that will walk with you. Find a mentor, be a mentor, seek accountability, get transparent before the Lord and those in covenant with you. Find a church that has a loving scriptural support-based view for sin and be immersed. You can make the commitment, declare the overcoming power of Jesus over your sin, and declare freedom and victory as you are devoted to move into the calling that God has for you.
Dr. Will Ryan
Special thanks to those that contributed to this article in a thought tank: Dr. Matt Mouzakis of X44, Nick Tenhagen, Dr. Phil Molitor, Pastor Steve Thorngate, and Josh Ruud. Please note that they do not necessarily share the view of the author and represent a very diverse mix of theological backgrounds.
Song of Solomon 8:6 says, “Put me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, jealousy is as severe as Sheol; its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the LORD.”
It quickly becomes clear to the attentive reader that the Song of Solomon places sexual desire, passion, and fulfillment under the authority of the “seal.” At the climax of the poem, the woman pleads with the man: “Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm” (Song 8:6). In biblical thought, the heart represents resolute obedience and devotion, while the arm signifies action and strength. Together, they portray a covenant bond—an inseparable unity of intention and practice—anchored in faithful devotion to the Lord.
The Hebrew word translated “seal” is ḥôtām (hotham). In the ancient Near East, a seal was often a carved stone or cylinder that left a raised impression marking ownership, authority, allegiance, and representation. To bear a seal was to act on behalf of the one who owned it. It signified commissioning and identity—an embodied declaration of whom one belonged to.
Interestingly, ḥôtām is a loanword from Egyptian, where it was sometimes associated with what we might broadly call “magic.” While that term can understandably cause discomfort today, this association invites reflection. Many couples describe the deepening intimacy of covenant marriage as “magical,” not because it is mystical in a pagan sense, but because it reflects something beautiful, powerful, and beyond ordinary explanation—a gift once rightly ordered before the Lord but often distorted in modern culture.
The passage also contains a striking reversal. The woman asks to be placed as a seal upon the man, implying that he belongs to her. In the Davidic period, such language would have been culturally unsettling. Yet this “upside-down” logic anticipates the kingdom ethic later revealed by Jesus—where victory comes through humility, authority through surrender, and life through self-giving love. Here, the man entrusts his life to the woman, foreshadowing the greater reality in which believers entrust their lives fully to Christ, embracing a lowly calling within the royal priesthood of the new covenant.
The woman’s request may be paraphrased as a prayer: “Lord, shape me to steward his heart rightly, placing his devotion to You above my own desires. Use me to lead him into fuller obedience, and let me rejoice in my role of belonging wholly to You together.” This posture reflects not only marital faithfulness but also the calling of the Church as the Bride of Christ—living in covenant submission and shared devotion.
The TKC seal draws upon this biblical imagery and bears an abbreviated Hebrew phrase: haʾUrim vəhaTummim (האורים והתומים), translated as “Urim and Thummim.” Over time—particularly during the diaspora and later Greek translations—the precise meaning of these terms was obscured. While Scripture does not explain exactly what the Urim and Thummim looked like or how they functioned, it is clear that the priests used them to discern the will of the Lord, trusting that the outcome was directed by Him.
The Urim and Thummim were associated with the ḥoshen, the breastplate worn by the High Priest and attached to the ephod. Although similar practices in surrounding cultures resembled divination by casting lots, in Israel this act was understood differently. It was not an attempt to manipulate divine power, but a declaration of total dependence and surrendered obedience. The priest laid down his life before the Lord, trusting that God would respond by guiding, directing, and accomplishing His purposes through faithful submission.
What appeared “impossible” or even “magical” to the surrounding nations was, in reality, the fruit of a life wholly given to God. Today, the language of Urim and Thummim expresses the calling and mission of TKC: to cultivate a discipleship culture unmistakably shaped by the power and presence of the Lord—not by human effort or strategy, but by wholehearted devotion to the Kingdom of Jesus.
Recently a pastor friend of over 20 years sent me a text and asked me what I thought of Amos 3:3. I get this sort of thing a lot, and I have to say I am honored by requests such as this and very much enjoy helping someone to gain a better scriptural understanding of a text. Many are surprised when I tell them that the majority of people that ask me for my take on a particular passage are actually pastors. I appreciate the heartfelt desire of those that ask to best understand a text or what the interpretation of the text means to us. I love the multiplicity of the body’s gifting when crafting a sermon. I used to preach a good deal and would nearly always ask for a panel to work through my sermon with me. Usually, the best part of the message came from something added by the panel. There is wealth in the gifting of the community of Jesus.
People regularly reply to my answers and wonder how I came to this, or how I “got all of that” out of the text. Well, this is a lifetime of understanding (that led to a Th.D.) but let me show you a bit of the process. This is a large part of what we teach at Covenant Theological Seminary.
Exegesis is “the process of careful analytical study of the Bible to produce useful interpretations of those passages.” [1] (In Greek this word “exegesis” is derived from ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai), which means simply to explain.
For most of our readers that think and primarily communicate in English this is important because the Bible wasn’t written or spoken in our native language. We have to translate the biblical languages and then determine what application it may have to us. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary states the goal of exegesis is “to know neither less nor more than the information actually contained in the passage. Exegesis … places no premium on speculation or inventiveness” and “novelty in interpretation is not prized.” [2]
Simply put, exegesis is not about discovering what we think a text means (or want it to mean) but what the biblical author meant. It’s concerned with intentionality—what the author intended his original readers to understand. [3]
My good friend and mentor John Walton would say that the Bible was written “for us, but not to us.” This hermeneutic, recently termed “cognitive environment criticism,”[4] is implicit in Walton’s earlier publications, such as Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (1989) and The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (2000). However, the phrase “for us, but not to us” does not appear in print, as far as we can tell, until 2008 when it is found in the final sentence of his article, fittingly titled, “Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document” (based on a paper presented in January 2004). The phrase (and several variations) subsequently appears throughout Walton’s Lost World volumes and in his Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief (2017).
The part of scripture that we need to interpret comes when we understand that the text means what the author intended to interpret. It may or may not have any application to us today.
Unfortunately, most people do not approach scripture this way. Rather, they often read meaning into a text that may or may not be there. This is called eisegesis and is the opposite of exegesis. We see this too often in sermons, someone stating a point they want to make and then trying to use a scripture or verse to prove their point or position. We sometimes refer to this as proof texting.
Proper exegesis requires context. Many have come up with a plan or path to best understand scripture. X44 tends to lean towards a Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation, that is first understanding the textures of a text and its reception. If this is new to you, I would suggest Vernon K. Robbins book “exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretations.” We have several X44 videos on interpretation.
Naselli [5] offers a similar take by considering these 8 steps: (SPECIAL THANKS TO MY FRIENDS AT LOGOS.COM FOR THE VISUALS, whose software I use nearly every hour.) Logos is likely the best exegetical tool, so I am going to demonstrate how I might use it.
1. Genre
Determine the passage’s style of literature. Is it poetry? Historical narrative? An epistle?
The Bible Books Explorer in the Logos app shows the different genres of Scripture by color coding and allows you to see how each book connects with other books in the Bible.
2. Textual criticism
Study the manuscript evidence to determine the original text’s exact wording.
In the Logos platform, you can look at textual variants to see key differences.
3. Translation
Translate the original language and compare other translations. (This is where a good Bible app comes in handy, especially if you do not know biblical Hebrew or Greek. More on that below.)
With the Text Comparison tool, you can easily see how different Bible translations handle a verse.
4. Greek and Hebrew grammar
Consider how sentences communicate by looking into their original language—words, phrases, and clauses.
With the Exegetical Guide, you can dig into specific words and phrases used in the passage you’re studying.
5. Argument diagram
Trace the author’s logical argument by arcing, bracketing, or phrasing.
Using Canvas, you can highlight powerful words, connect thoughts, and use other methods to mark up or outline the text.
6. Historical-cultural context
Understand the situation in which the author composed the literature and any historical-cultural details that the author mentions or probably assumes.
The Advanced Timeline in Logos 10 allows you to see what else was happening in the world when Malachi was written, for example.Using the Cultural Concepts feature in Logos, you can more easily notice things you might be missing about the time and culture in which a passage was written.
7. Literary context
Understand the role a passage plays in its whole book (and the whole Bible).
Find related passages to and from the passage you’re studying so you can zoom out to the bigger context.
8. Word studies
Unpack key words, phrases, and concepts. You can jump into a Bible word study right from your passage. For example, if you noticed that the ESV says “pleasure” and CSB and NIV say “pleased” in step 3, you can take a closer look at the word.
So now that you are beginning to understand how I, or a theologian thinks about scripture, let me give you a hands-on example. The verse my friend asked about specifically was Amos 3:3 so I will use my response to him to demonstrate an exegesis based off of the FREE tools of Bible Hub available on the internet to anyone. I realize Logos is likely more expensive than most people are willing to invest. (But I continually argue that exegesis should be a large part of every Christian’s life.)
Let’s dive into the text! First let’s just consider some simple Observations:
I would suggest just using a browser and type in the verse you wish to know more about followed by the word “interlinear.” This will likely bring up a Bible Hub link.
Hebrew reads right to left so let’s start with the first word. I would recommend clicking the transliterated word itself first, but also clicking the Strong’s number above it to give you a better root word understanding. In this case we see the English “can walk” is from the Hebrew “halak” which is the common word for “to walk.” However, something neither of these software options will tell you plainly is that “halak” became an idiom in Hebrew metaphorically referring to the Edenic walk or relationship of intimacy that we should be desirous of with the Father. Thats where my 25 years of Theology and training may come in helpful. But let’s not jump to conclusions, that may be inferred, or it may not be. Let’s continue.
Two usually means “two” simply or in plain reading, but it is a cardinal number in Hebrew denoting plurality so that can simply mean “more than one” – so here it has to be interpreted in context of the rest of the scripture. (You will find this in Bible Hub reading the commentary section.) So far these aren’t major implications.
Together is a word of being united linguistically both in Hebrew and in our modern English context. NT Greek would be “of one accord” which you may be more familiar with. This is where you might want to stop and think, is there is a slight connection to using the term halak? Maybe, but the text still doesn’t necessarily say that or give us that.
“Except” here in Hebrew functions like a substantive adverb, it is essentially adding “not” in front of something. We do this regularly in English, turning things into the opposite. (Don’t do that.)
In this particular case, we now arrive to why the original person questions the verse, interpretation gets a bit sketchy for scholars here and this comes out in commentary. The issue is in Hebrew the structure gets strange, the word translated as “unless” or something similar is simply “im” in Hebrew which is used over 700 times to simply mean “if;” but can also function like an interrogative participle which in Hebrew would mean it takes on the notion of “although, except, or however.” Lastly, to make it even more complicated, it is also a contronym in Hebrew, so it strangely can also mean sort of the opposite which would be “truly or surely.” This combined with the substantive adverb in front makes any scholar scratch their head.
It continues to be strange with the last singular word in Hebrew is “ya’ad” which they translate “they are agreed” but this is also unique as in Hebrew it functions as the main verb of the sentence. To make it more complicated, the word is only found two places in scripture here and in Psalm 48:4 where it rather takes a notion of assembly rather than agreement, but the root word is a lot more common which usually means appointed. My point is that none of this really helps us much, the truth is it could be interpreted a couple of different ways.
Amos 3:3 is part of a series of cause-and-effect statements to establish Amos’ right and duty to prophesy. The word in 3:3 which must be dealt with is ya’ad (to agree-KJV); it is a Niphal (passive or reflective verb) verb as I alluded to above. All of these things mean something to me, but they likely do not to you. Of course, you can think through it and likely come to a similar thought, that the point of the verse is that Amos would not have been prophesying had God not called him (after all, Amos was neither a prophet nor a son of a prophet) the same as two people would not be walking together unless they had previously made an appointment to meet each other. We could just leave it there, but a good scholar digs deeper. Let’s see what other scholars think and why.
W. J. Deane, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1950), Vol. XIV, p. 40 writes:
The contents of these verses are not to be reduced to the general thought, that: a -prophet could no more speak without a divine impulse than any other effect could take place without a cause. There was certainly no need for a long series of examples, such as we have In very. 3-6, to substantiate or illustrate the thought, which a reflecting hearer would hardly have disputed, that there was a connection between cause and effect. The examples are evidently selected with the view of showing that the utterances of the prophet originate with God. This is obvious enough In vers. 7,8. The first clause, ‘Do two men walk together, without having agreed as to their meeting?’ (no’ad, to betake one’s sell to a place, to meet together at an appointed place’or an appointed time; compare Job ii:11, Josh. xi.5, Neh. vi.2; not merely to agree together) contains something more than the trivial truth, that two persons do not take a walk, together without a previous arrangement. The two who walk together are Jehovah and the prophet (Cyril); not Jehovah and the nation, to which the judgment is predicted. . . . Amos went as prophet to Samaria or Bethel, because the Lord had sent him thither to preach judgment on the sinful kingdom.”
Carl Friedrich Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1951), p. 260 says:
“The ‘two’ are God’s judgments and the prophet’s word. These do not coincide by mere chance, no more than two persons pursue in company the same end without previous agreement. The prophet announces God’s judgment because God has commissioned him; the prophet Is of one mind with God, therefore the Lord is with him and confirms his words.
I also came across an interesting article when researching that shows Leroy Garrett making a claim that this verse represents a biblical reasoning for “unity in diversity”. I don’t see that in the exegesis above.
So, let’s get back to where we started. What did this text mean to the intended audience? I think we need to let this passage mostly represent its intended audience. Personally, I’m not sure there’s much if any application to us here today, but that’s just me! I think we need to let the primary message to the intended audience be the primary message in most cases. But perhaps there is a takeaway for us, that is what everyone is looking for right? Let’s consider that.
If this text in Amos supports anything remotely connected to present-day relationships, the context would show us it would be the necessity of agreeing to meet with a brother/sister in order to walk in unity. In the first century and before most “church” settings were small; there really isn’t a context for the mega church setting we are most all in today. Most situations either address a small intimate group described as a family (which meant those in your circle more than blood relation) or it mean communal Israel. Biblical diversity can be beautiful, but it can also cause us to be “out of harmony.” In a bigger picture, we do not have to agree on everything in order to walk together, even though as Christians we will agree on many things and certainly on the authority of Scripture to take us further in our understanding of God’s truth.
This is where things often get miscommunicated, because as brothers and sisters in Christ, we are in a covenant together “walking” as in the garden might apply to our most intimate relationships, spouses, family, and perhaps our inner circle; but this verse seems to better point towards communal unity in Israel, the big church. And let’s not forget that when Amos was penned, Israel was totally messed up and a far cry from Eden. Thats should adjust your application to your situation.
But I don’t think anyone will argue that we need to be in agreement with God or moving in that direction without imagining that we have arrived at a point where we can demand agreement from others with us. We may not agree on some things that are peripheral to maintaining and manifesting the biblical unity that exists in Christ. If you “swim” in a tribe of other intimate relational covenant fish you’re going to be in a better place each day.
Yet one thing I think this verse shows us that is timeless is that we should understand that a disagreeing brother/sister should not automatically be equated with a disobedient brother/sister. It is far too facile to label disagreement as disobedience and I think this has had devastating consequences on our church.
When anyone starts to think that God’s way is their way and if someone disagrees with them than they disagree with God; they open up a contentious entanglement with the world.
Can we agree to disagree and yet agree to walk together in some measure in the work of God and in the enjoyment of fellowship or at least rejoice at what God is doing in the lives and ministries of others without becoming their theological critics? On the other hand, let’s discuss it in love! Let’s return to the hillside meetings of the first century searching for truth for most of our day.
One true measure of our spiritual maturity and fruit may be whether we will agree to walk together in true obedience and genuine fellowship in spite of our disagreements. Exegesis should come as a circular result of searching for what God has for you and those in your sphere, as God’s word is revealed and applied.
Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, “Exegesis” (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT), 1992.
Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, “Exegesis” (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT), 1992.
D. Fee, Handbook to New Testament Exegesis (1993), 27.
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (second edition, 2018), 11, 18; Walton, Old Testament Theology for Christians, 16.
Naselli, Andy. New Testament Exegesis: Understanding and Applying the New Testament (Course), (Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA), 2016
