Category Archives: ADVENTURE

Signs of Covenant Faithfulness

Posted by expedition44 on

1. Faith and Trust in God’s Word

At the heart of covenant faithfulness is trust in God Himself. Abraham “believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6). This pattern carries through Scripture: covenant faithfulness begins not with works, but with confident reliance on God’s promises (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17).

2. Obedience Flowing from Love

Obedience is not the covenant’s foundation but its fruit. Israel was called to walk in God’s ways because they already belonged to Him (Exod 19:4–6; Deut 6:4–6). Jesus echoes this covenant logic: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Faithfulness is lived out through responsive obedience.

3. Communion & Sabbath Rest

The Sabbath functions as a covenant sign of communion, trust and faithfulness (Exod 31:12–17). By resting, Israel confessed that their life and provision came from God, not their own labor. Sabbath-keeping embodied faith in God’s sustaining care and faithfulness.

Circumcision – Washing of Feet – Baptism – Communion

At first glance, practices such as circumcision, foot washing, baptism, and communion can feel foreign—even uncomfortable—to modern readers. Yet within the biblical story, they are deeply connected. Each functions as an embodied sign through which God teaches His people what covenant faithfulness, belonging, and transformation look like.

In the Old Testament, circumcision served as the covenant sign given to Abraham and his descendants (Gen 17:9–14). It marked the body and permanently reminded Israel that their identity and future depended entirely on God’s promise. It was not merely a ritual act, but a visible declaration that God creates life where human ability fails.

Foot washing appears in the Old Testament as an act of hospitality, humility, and purification (Gen 18:4; 19:2; 1 Sam 25:41). In a dusty world, washing another’s feet signaled welcome and relational submission. This cultural practice laid the groundwork for its deeper theological meaning in the New Testament.

Baptism emerges in continuity with Old Testament washing rites that symbolized cleansing and renewal (Exod 29:4; Lev 16:4; Ezek 36:25). These washings pointed forward to a more complete purification—one not merely of the body, but of the heart. In the New Testament, baptism becomes the covenant sign of union with Christ, symbolizing death to the old life and resurrection into new life (Rom 6:3–4).

Communion, like circumcision, is a covenant meal. It echoes the Passover, where Israel remembered God’s saving act through a shared, embodied practice (Exod 12). Jesus reframes this meal around Himself, declaring the bread and cup to be His body and blood—the means by which the New Covenant is established (Luke 22:19–20). Communion continually reorients the Church around Christ’s sacrificial faithfulness.

Foot washing reaches its theological climax when Jesus washes His disciples’ feet (John 13:1–17). In this act, Jesus unites cleansing, humility, and love. He demonstrates that covenant belonging in the New Testament is marked not by dominance or status, but by self-giving service. The act does not replace baptism or communion but interprets them: those who have been cleansed by Christ are called to live cleansed lives marked by humble love.

Together, these practices reveal a consistent biblical pattern. God teaches spiritual truths through physical actions. Covenant faithfulness is not abstract; it is embodied. Circumcision marked God’s people as recipients of divine promise. Washings prepared them for holy presence. Baptism unites believers to Christ’s death and resurrection. Communion sustains them through continual remembrance and participation in Christ’s life.

What seems strange to modern culture is, in Scripture, profoundly intentional. From Genesis to the Gospels, God forms His people through signs that engage the body, the community, and the memory—shaping not only what they believe, but how they live.

Diving deeper into Circumcision

Communion functions in the New Covenant in ways that closely parallel how circumcision functioned in the Old Covenant. In the Old Testament, circumcision was the covenant sign given to Abraham and his household (Gen 17:9–14). It did not create the covenant; rather, it marked those who belonged to it. Circumcision identified a person as part of God’s covenant people and continually pointed back to God’s promise to bring life where human ability had failed.

Similarly, communion does not establish the New Covenant but bears witness to it. At the Last Supper, Jesus identified the cup as “the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). Each time believers participate in the Lord’s Supper, they are visibly and repeatedly reminded that their life with God is grounded not in their own faithfulness, but in Christ’s sacrificial death.

Both circumcision and communion are physical, embodied signs of spiritual realities. Circumcision marked the body and permanently reminded Israel that their existence depended on God’s miraculous promise. Communion involves tangible elements—bread and wine—that engage the body and senses, proclaiming that the Church’s life flows from Christ’s broken body and shed blood (1 Cor 11:26).

Both signs are also communal and covenantal, not merely private. Circumcision incorporated individuals into a covenant people, shaping their identity and responsibilities. In the same way, communion is a shared meal that proclaims unity in Christ’s body (1 Cor 10:16–17). Participation affirms belonging to the covenant community and submission to its Lord.

Finally, both signs call for faithful response and self-examination. Circumcision without covenant loyalty was condemned by the prophets (Jer 4:4). Likewise, Paul warns against receiving communion in an unworthy manner, detached from repentance and love for the body of Christ (1 Cor 11:27–29). In both cases, the sign points beyond itself to a life of faithful trust and obedience.

In short, circumcision marked Israel as a people created by God’s promise, while communion continually re-centers the Church on the saving work of Christ. Different signs, same covenant logic: God gives a visible marker to remind His people who they are, how they were redeemed, and upon whom their life depends.

Circumcision appears nearly one hundred times in Scripture and plays an important role in both Old and New Testament theology (Rom 4:9–12; Gal 2:1–12; 5:1–10). At first glance, this emphasis can seem strange. Yet Scripture treats circumcision as a serious theological symbol, not a mere cultural practice.

In Genesis 17, circumcision is given as the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham. However, it was not unique to Israel. Many peoples in the ancient Near East practiced circumcision, including Israel’s neighbors (Jer 9:25–26), as well as cultures in Egypt, Syria, and Phoenicia. Historical and archaeological evidence shows that circumcision existed long before Israel emerged as a nation. This suggests that circumcision alone did not set Israel apart from surrounding nations.

What made circumcision distinctive was not the act itself, but the promise attached to it. When God commanded Abraham to be circumcised, Abraham was beyond the age of fathering children, and Sarah was past childbearing years (Gen 18:11). Yet God promised that through Sarah, Abraham would have an innumerable offspring (Gen 17:21; 18:14). The covenant, therefore, depended entirely on God’s miraculous intervention.

Circumcision marked the household of Abraham as participants in a promise that could only be fulfilled by God. At the time, the meaning of this sign may not have been fully clear. Its significance became evident when Isaac was born. That birth confirmed that Israel’s existence was not the result of human strength, but of divine faithfulness.

From that moment on, circumcision served as a lasting reminder that Israel owed its life to the Lord. It pointed back to the miracle that brought the people into being and continually reinforced their dependence on God’s covenant grace.

In the New Testament, circumcision no longer defines membership in God’s people. As Paul teaches, belonging to God’s family is no longer marked by a physical sign, but by faith in Christ (Gal 5:6). Paul even links circumcision to baptism (Col 2:10–12), showing that both are covenant signs grounded in faith. In Christ, God’s people—men and women alike—are marked not by the body, but by trust in the saving work of God.

CONCLUSION

Biblical covenant faithfulness is God’s work of creating and sustaining a people through promise, and the faithful response of that people lived out in embodied trust and obedience. From the Old Testament to the New, God marks His covenant not merely with ideas, but with visible, physical signs—circumcision, washings, baptism, and communion—that remind His people that their life comes from Him alone. These signs do not create the covenant; they testify to it, pointing beyond themselves to God’s saving action. Covenant faithfulness, therefore, is trusting God’s promise, receiving His cleansing and provision, remembering His saving work, and living humbly and obediently as His redeemed people.

Is it time to start writing a War Scroll yet?

Posted by expedition44 on

Recent developments within American political life raise serious theological and pastoral concerns, particularly when Christian language and symbols are invoked to legitimize the exercise of state power. When sectors of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity publicly align themselves with coercive or dehumanizing immigration enforcement practices, such alignment risks distancing Christian witness from the ethic and teachings of Jesus himself (Matt 7:15–20; Luke 4:18–19).

This week, 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, an intensive care nurse from Minneapolis, was shot and killed by federal agents during an immigration enforcement operation on January 24, 2026. Pretti was well-known locally as a VA hospital ICU nurse with no serious criminal history. Bystander video analyzed by news outlets appears to show Pretti holding only a phone and not a weapon before being sprayed with a chemical agent, tackled to the ground, and then shot by agents. Footage suggests that one of the agents appears to remove a handgun from the struggle just moments before shots are fired. As many as 10 shots can be heard in the clip that captured the event. Federal officials have said that agents fired in what they described as defensive action after Pretti allegedly approached with a handgun and resisted disarmament; local authorities have confirmed he was a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry. The shooting has sparked protests and intense public scrutiny over the handling of the incident and the actions of federal forces in Minneapolis. Perhaps we don’t know all of the story; it is hard to tell if Alex was just being tackled by several government officials or if he was part of the struggle. So far in the footage, we can’t see what was happening up close. But all of this seems excessive and out of line.

Regardless of whether Alex was resistant, as an ardent constitutional 2A supporter and owner of an NRA gun range, this has me considering a revolution. I have taught History at many educational levels. The American Revolution emerged from a growing conviction that British authority had become unjust and tyrannical. Colonists faced taxation without representation, loss of local self-governance, standing armies enforcing civil law, economic restrictions, and denial of due process. Influenced by the Enlightenment and biblical ideas of God-given rights, many concluded (right or wrong) that when government violates its covenant to protect liberty, resistance becomes morally justified. Minnesota is getting dangerously close to the similarities of the Boston Massacre, which occurred on March 5, 1770. Could we be six years away from a Civil War revolution?

I recognize how complex these conversations are. Unlike some voices on my side who completely reject any connection to the MAGA movement, I do not. In fact, I can see certain elements of Christian language and symbolism appearing in our government. Yet, these are often eclipsed by hypocrisy and rhetoric that conflict with biblical teaching. I sometimes smile, but the reflection behind it remains sorrowful.

I don’t watch the news much anymore; I have decided it isn’t good for my desire to be completely kingdom-minded. So, when I get too enthralled with discussions like this, I am thankful that my pastoral senses kick in (likely the Holy Spirit) and I remember the Jesus that I am faithfully in covenant with never called for the faithful to start that sort of a revolution. In fact, the political climate of Jeremiah was likely significantly worse, with sons and daughters taken into slavery by the coming empire, and Jeremiah’s words were strikingly calm,

“Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. 6 Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.”1

Recently you may have observed that federal recruitment materials have, at times, incorporated Scripture and explicitly religious language. The concern is not merely that biblical texts appear in public discourse, but that such language is deployed by agencies tasked with the use of force. As David Wehner argues, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement frames its mission in theological terms, it implicitly communicates that its actions carry divine sanction. In one regard, isn’t this good? Is the government finally trying to align with the path of the scripture?

One of several example of this can be found in the September 2025, (a now-renamed) U.S. Department of War social media account that posted a video showing military personnel with overlaid Bible text:

“Be strong and of good courage. Do not be afraid, nor dismayed. For the Lord your God is with you, wherever you go.” — Joshua 1:9

In the 1920s and 1930s, elements within the German Evangelical Church aligned themselves with nationalist ideology through the Deutsche Christen (“German Christians”) movement. Christian theology was reshaped to support political aims, including the construction of a “heroic” and racially reimagined Jesus, detached from his Jewish identity and biblical context (Heschel, The Aryan Jesus). While contemporary America is not equivalent to Germany under National Socialism, Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s warning remains instructive: when the church confuses loyalty to Christ with loyalty to political power, it ceases to function as the church at all (Ethics; Letters and Papers from Prison).

From a discipleship perspective, the central question is not partisan but Christological: What does faithfulness to Jesus require when power is exercised in ways that harm the vulnerable? The New Testament consistently places the treatment of the stranger, the poor, and the powerless at the center of faithful obedience (Matt 25:31–46; Lev 19:33–34; Heb 13:2).

The Gospels portray Jesus as resisting coercive power, refusing to dehumanize opponents, and explicitly rejecting the use of divine authority to justify domination (Luke 22:25–27; John 18:36). Any policy or practice that undermines human dignity must therefore be assessed not merely by its legality, but by its conformity to the character of Christ (Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom).

At the center of Christian confession stands the claim that God became flesh among the marginalized, the displaced, and the suffering (John 1:14; Luke 2:7). Faithfulness to Christ calls the church not to baptize power, but to bear witness to a kingdom that restores dignity, practices mercy, and speaks truth—even when doing so is costly.

I believe our government has drifted far from the ethics of Jesus. The way power is being exercised in the name of immigration enforcement (as well as other ideals) is not consistent with the character of Christ.

It is not Christlike to use children as instruments of coercion or entrapment. It is not Christlike to publicly humiliate an elderly citizen—forcing him out into freezing conditions in his underwear. It is not Christlike to fire on unarmed protesters at close range. It is not Christlike to detain human beings in degrading, inhumane conditions. It is not Christlike to tear gas a family’s vehicle and send three children, including an infant, to the hospital. And it is not Christlike to terrorize immigrant communities, communities of color, or anyone else, for that matter.2

Make no mistake, America is not a “Christian nation” nor was that ever the intent. Yet the way many Christians behave in public life today resembles something far closer to a distorted form of Christianity than to the faith of Jesus. In many cases, authoritarian power is being legitimized by a misuse of Christian language and symbols.

When Christianity is weaponized for political control, it becomes something other than the gospel. When the name of Jesus is invoked to justify fear, exclusion, or violence, the message of the cross is compromised. And when Christians remain silent—or worse, defend policies that dehumanize and brutalize others—we betray the very gospel we claim to uphold. If you didn’t catch the satire, don’t worry—I’m not starting or joining any militant revolution, no matter how messed up things seem. The only revolution in my future is sharing the joy and peace of following Jesus—you could definitely call that a revolution!



  1. Jeremiah 29:5-7 ↩︎
  2. @Benjamin Cremer ↩︎

Bibliography

  1. Bellah, Robert N. “Civil Religion in America.” Daedalus 96, no. 1 (1967): 1–21.
  2. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
  3. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison. New York: Touchstone, 1997.
  4. Hauerwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.
  5. Heschel, Susannah. The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
  6. The Bible, New Revised Standard Version.
  7. Wehner, David. “The MAGA Jesus.” The Atlantic.

NOTE:

The title of this article is a bit tongue and cheek; I do not believe the War Scroll was aligned with the view of Jesus in any way. I hope you are able to pick up on the hyperbole. The War Scroll, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, is a detailed eschatological text attributed to the Essenes, a Jewish sect living in the area during the Second Temple period. It describes a final, cosmic battle between the “Sons of Light” (the righteous community) and the “Sons of Darkness” (their enemies, including the forces of evil and oppressive nations). The scroll outlines military organization, strategy, and rituals, presenting the war as part of God’s ultimate plan to purify Israel and establish divine rule. Scholars view it as reflecting the Essenes’ apocalyptic worldview and their belief in an imminent, divinely guided victory over evil.

Comments Off on Is it time to start writing a War Scroll yet? Posted in ADVENTURE

GENESIS 17 AND THE COVENANT

Posted by expedition44 on

From the beginning, Scripture uses marriage as a central metaphor for the deep intimacy God desires with His people. It is the closest human image of the nearness and unity God longs to share with us. This is why Christ describes the church as His bride, expressing His desire for a relationship with His body. Throughout the Old Testament, God continually pursues His people, making a way back to them even when they break covenant. The central theme of the entire narrative of the Bible is God’s desire to intimately dwell with us.

Many can recall moments in their marriage when everything seemed perfectly aligned—when joy was intense and love felt effortless. Those moments are gifts, brief glimpses of heaven touching earth. They reflect, in part, the kind of covenantal intimacy God desires with His people and with a husband and wife together: a union strengthened as a cord of three strands, bound by God Himself.

As I write, my wife and children are on a mission trip, and I’m home alone for the first time in nearly 25 years of marriage. It feels strange. There are some benefits—quiet, a clean house, no hectic evenings or morning routines—but the house feels empty. I miss my family. With extra time on my hands, I find myself remembering the best moments of our life together. Even in the hard times, we shared joy. I don’t know how I will handle empty nesting when that day comes, but this short season alone has helped me re-gather what is most dear.

I think every marriage could benefit from that kind of intentional pause. As my time apart grows, I’m becoming more purposeful in praying for them, thinking about what I want to emphasize when they return and what truly defines our family. I’m asking: What is God doing in our lives, and where have we missed His plan?

In Genesis 17, God renames Abram and Sarai as Abraham and Sarah, marking a defining moment in the covenant. These name changes are not merely symbolic but carry deep theological, linguistic, and cultural meaning. While Abraham’s renaming often receives greater attention, Sarah’s change is equally significant, affirming her essential role as matriarch within God’s covenant promises.

The name אַבְרָם (Avram) means “exalted father.” In Genesis 17:5, God changes his name to אַבְרָהָם (Avraham), meaning “father of a multitude,” expanding his identity to encompass many nations. This shift highlights the covenant’s widened scope.

I realize most of my readers will not know Hebrew but look closely at the differences in the Hebrew spelling. The added letter ה (he) is significant. It appears in God’s name Yahweh (יהוה), symbolizing divine presence and creative power. Its inclusion marks God’s direct involvement in Abraham’s calling and, in Hebraic tradition, echoes the five books of the Torah, linking Abraham to God’s covenantal law. Even the sound of the name changes: the sharp ending of Avram gives way to the openness of Avraham, reflecting his transformation from a local patriarch into a figure of global promise. The same change happens with Sarai. The names שָׂרָי (Sarai) and שָׂרָה (Sarah) share the root שָׂר (sar), meaning “ruler” or “princess,” and both convey strength and authority. Sarai likely means “my princess,” with the possessive ending tying her role closely to Abraham’s household. Sarah, without that ending, signals a broader calling. Like Abraham, Sarah receives the letter ה (he), associating her name with God’s blessing and promise. Her renaming reveals her identity not merely as Abraham’s wife but as a matriarch of nations and kings. The shift from י (yod) to ה (he) reflects this expansion—from a limited, familial role to a universal one—while the softer sound of Sarah mirrors the widening scope of her influence. Essentially, both names are changed by simply adding the Hebrew letter that signifies God Himself residing in them.

Today we have the advantage of seeing the Bible in its full narrative, but Abraham and Sarah did not. They did not fully understand God’s unfolding plan, which is why Scripture highlights their remarkable faith. Genesis 17 is one of the earliest indications of God’s desire to dwell within His people. In a powerful way, the name changes of Abraham and Sarah symbolize God’s presence being placed within them.

Yet the story is not complete without Jesus. Regardless of which atonement theory one holds, we all agree that Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, enthronement, and the sending of the Spirit are essential to fulfill what began with that simple name change. In Christ, we see the ultimate fulfillment of God dwelling in us—not merely as a promise, but as a reality.

This is why the New Testament speaks so clearly about being “dead to self” and alive in Christ. Paul writes that our old self was crucified with Him so that sin might be rendered powerless (Romans 6:4–7). We are called to put off the old self and put on the new, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:22–24). “I have been crucified with Christ,” Paul declares, “and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20). This transformation is not merely moral improvement but a radical renewal: we are no longer conformed to the world but transformed by the renewing of our minds (Colossians 3:10). Indeed, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

These passages show that the promise of God dwelling within us, first hinted at in Abraham and Sarah’s name changes, finds its full expression in Christ—where the old self is crucified and the new self is born. Perhaps today you need to consider inserting the ה into your names together!

He (pronounced in English as hey) ה is the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The letter ה (he) is formed from a ד (dalet) and a י (yud). The dalet, composed of horizontal and vertical lines, represents the physical world—its breadth and height, material space and structure. The yud, the small detached element, symbolizes God and the spiritual realm. Together, they form the heh, expressing the union of the material and the divine. In this way, God calls those in whom He dwells to sanctify the physical world by filling it with spirituality and Godliness. We are His ambassadors, sent to reclaim creation and restore the holiness lost when humanity left Eden.

The top horizontal line of the ה represents thought and points toward equality. From the beginning, God’s design for male and female reflects this equality, though it was fractured at the Fall. Still, we are called to restore God’s ideal. In the future renewed creation, equality and righteousness will be fully realized. Yet the horizontal line that unites Abraham and Sarah may suggest that God’s ideal can begin to take shape even now, sooner than we often expect. God’s ideal plan is for a husband and wife to edify one another in unison.

The debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism often depends on how key biblical passages are interpreted. Some verses emphasize equality in creation, while others appear to assign distinct roles for men and women in the church. Commonly cited texts include Genesis 1:27, Galatians 3:28, 1 Timothy 2:11–15, and 1 Corinthians 14. I will revisit some of these later, but regardless of where you land, I believe we can agree that when we humbly live out our callings with God at the center, the debate becomes less crucial, and the outcomes are remarkably similar. These passages are frequently used by both sides, but their meaning depends heavily on context, audience, and intended purpose. Evaluating them requires careful consideration of the broader biblical narrative.

So much of this conversation can be seen in the Hebrew Grammar of this passage. In the ה, the shorter, detached left leg represents action. Its separation highlights the difficulty of translating right thoughts and words into deeds. The gap reminds us that action requires effort and intention. Without action, thought and speech remain incomplete—leaving only the dalet, symbolizing spiritual emptiness.

As the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, ה has traditionally been linked to the five levels of the soul—nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chayah, and yechidah. In Hebrew thought, these elements tend to represent who a person “really” is. The fifth tier, yechidah, signifies union and represents the deepest part of the soul. This level is often described as the pintele Yid, the indestructible divine spark within every image bearer. It is a spark that can never be extinguished or corrupted, and it remains the eternal bond that unites us with God. The pintele Yid is also the source of mesirat nefesh, or self-sacrifice. When Christ takes up dwelling in us, we should take on Christ’s sense of humble self-sacrifice (Romans 12:1). The bond between a Christian and God is intrinsic and unbreakable, anchored in the pintele Yid.

Her first name Sarai in Hebrew (שָׂרַי, “my princess”), meant princess and could have denoted her as an Egyptian princess which Gen 12:11-20 might allude to; but later she is *renamed by the Lord because of her faith as Sarah (שָׂרָה, which also meant “princess”, but is slightly different. In Hebrew text also has a number correlation and often means something. This is a form of numerology. Regarding Sarah’s name change, the Yod (whose numerical value is 10) was “taken” from Sarai and divided into two Heys (whose numerical value is 5). Half was given (by God) to form the name Sarah and the other half was given to form the name Abraham (from Abram). The implication was that she was already “whole” or “complete” which later is described by Jesus as “perfection” being what believers can attain to in the way they are made new in Christ. In this thinking, Abraham was not complete and needed something from her to be returned to the complete or equal state. There is a sense of “reversing hermon” going on here if you speak that language. It is a reverse of the God taking something from Adam to make Eve; for Abraham to be reinstated, Sarah would have to give something from herself. That is why if you don’t read this in Hebrew you can’t truly understand the implications of Hebrews 11 and why Sarah is actually considered “THE” true heroine of faith (Heb. 11:11) and Abraham isn’t mentioned. Is your mind blown yet? Essentially, at this point in the Timeline what God was attempting to accomplish in Sarah was to re-establish the royal priesthood that had been lost in the fall. Perhaps she thought Issac was the one that would bring life, and perhaps that was God’s plan that men then continued to mess up. The woman began the fall, but man has sustained it. Together in covenant relationship through a strand of three cords we can restore it, but will we get there and when?

(The above paragraph is an excerpt from an earlier x44 post. If you haven’t read the PART 1 and 2 of the Expedition 44 posts of the Akedah or binding of Isaac, you may want to read those posts. You can find them using the search bar to the upper right of this post.)

The renaming of Abraham and Sarah reveals them as equal partners in God’s covenant. Although Abraham often receives greater attention, Genesis 17 clearly affirms Sarah’s central role. God’s promise that she would be “a mother of nations” and that “kings of peoples shall come from her” parallels Abraham’s calling, showing that she fully shares in the covenant. Both receiving the letter ה underscores their shared participation in God’s blessing and purpose.

This shared status challenges ancient cultural norms that minimized women’s significance. By renaming Sarah and granting her covenantal promises, God elevates her beyond the domestic sphere. Her name, “princess” (שָׂרָה), signals real authority—later demonstrated in decisive moments such as the sending away of Hagar and Ishmael (Gen 21:10–12).

Sarah’s renaming is especially powerful because she was barren (Genesis 11:30). In her time, not having children was a source of shame, but God turns her from an outsider to a mother of nations. Her laughter in Genesis 18:12, often considered doubt, can also show her surprise at God’s bold promise—a barren woman giving birth to kings. This shows how God picks unlikely people, like Moses or David, to do great things.

Sarah’s influence goes beyond Israel. In Galatians 4:22–31, Paul calls her the mother of the “children of promise,” contrasting her with Hagar. In 1 Peter 3:6, she’s a model of faith. Her name, שָׂרָה, becomes a symbol of strength and hope. Some would even deduce from these passages that she might even be credited with greater faith than Abraham.

There are many deeper details in this text that I won’t address here, but the central theme from Genesis to Revelation is clear: God desires to dwell within us. He wants our marriages to be holy and intimate, reflecting—but never fully replacing—our deepest union with Him. What would a marriage look like if the distractions and compromises of the world were set aside, and a couple pursued the purpose God always intended for them? This is the heart of what it means to be in Covenant with the almighty God. That we may be fully devoted to image Him as He resides in us. And your marriage partner is God’s gift of grace to this plan.

MATT 13:44 Hidden Treasure Discussion

Posted by expedition44 on

In Matthew 13, Jesus tells a series of parables that He calls “the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.” Through these 7 stories, Jesus reveals how God’s kingdom is at work in the world right now.

The kingdom of heaven is God’s rule and authority breaking into ordinary human life. These parables show how that kingdom has been unfolding since Jesus’ first coming and how it will continue to grow—often quietly, patiently, and unexpectedly—until He returns.

The first four parables in Matthew 13 were spoken publicly by the Sea of Galilee. A large crowd gathered, so Jesus taught from a boat just offshore. These parables were meant for everyone to hear.

But the parable of the treasure hidden in the field begins a second group of teachings. Though given on the same day, these parables were spoken privately, after Jesus and His disciples went back into the house. Matthew tells us they were addressed to the disciples alone—and that detail matters. 4 parables to the public seekers and 3 to his disciples starting with this one; the parable of the hidden treasure, the parable of the pearl of great price, and the parable of the dragnet. 

Together, all seven parables reveal the work of the kingdom, but this shift from public teaching to private instruction reminds us that deeper understanding comes through closeness and commitment to Jesus.

It could be a picture of Israel1 – Chosen and then buried until the second coming (dispensationalism) – As I see the correlation, I am not sure I see the theology of Jesus actually being the one to intentionally “cover” or bury Israel. Also, the context of the other parables doesn’t seem to match up with this interpretation exactly, it seems like a reach.

Some have recognized the correlation to the 7 churches John writes about in revelation and believe that this story is a precursor to his letter to them years later.2

  • Ephesus (Revelation 2:1–7): known for having laboured hard and not fainted, and separating themselves from the wicked; admonished for having forsaken its first love (2:4)
  • Smyrna (Revelation 2:8–11): admired for its tribulation and poverty; but for which it is foretold that it will suffer persecution (2:10)
  • Pergamon (Revelation 2:12–17): located in a city where ‘Satan’s seat’ is; needs to repent of allowing false teachers. Admonished for eating “food sacrificed to idols” and “sexual immorality”. (2:16)
  • Thyatira (Revelation 2:18–29): known for its charity, whose “latter works are greater than the former”; admonished for tolerating the teachings of a false prophetess.
  • Sardis (Revelation 3:1–6): admonished for being spiritually dead even though it had a false public reputation of “being alive”. Cautioned to fortify itself and return to God through repentance (3:2–3)
  • Philadelphia (called Alaşehir since 1390; Revelation 3:7–13): known as steadfast in faith, keeping God’s word and enduring patiently (3:10)
  • Laodicea on the Lycus, near Denizli (see Laodicean Church) (Revelation 3:14–22): called lukewarm and insipid; described as fiscally wealthy but spiritually poor. (3:16)

Can you identify which one of these churches lines up with this parable? It is Sardis. Most “Christians” are soiled (dead), but there is a faithful remnant that is alive. 500 years before John’s “revelation of Jesus” letter was written, Sardis was one of the most powerful and richest cities in the region. But it weakened through moral failures and was conquered by both the Persian and Grecian empires because it “fell asleep.” When the invaders were climbing the hill to attack the city they uncovered the red soil. It was said that someone rain into the palace and yelled “RED” and the rulers took no heed thinking they were impenetrable falling back asleep and were overcome by the morning. That is where the soliloquy “CODE RED” emerged from.3

Let’s consider the text a bit more in depth.

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN – The “Kingdom of God” and its equivalent form “Kingdom of Heaven” in the Gospel of Matthew is one of the key elements of the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark indicates that the gospel is the good news about the Kingdom of God. The term pertains to the kingship of Christ over all creation.4 

TREASURE – This to represent the free gift of the gospel. Some struggle here with finding something in a filed. We want to think in modern Western terms. Who owns a found treasure? The government? If you keep it is it stealing? I will remind you that we need to first understand the way the intended audience would have understood this within their culture before you apply it to your world. In the ancient world fields were gleaned by the destitute allowed to “work” the remains of the field. Remember Ruth? Ruth is allowed to glean in the fields as part of the Mosaic Law, which mandated that farmers leave some of their harvest for the poor and sojourners (Leviticus 19:9-10, Deuteronomy 24:19). Many people buried their “wealth” in Bible times as they did not trust it from thieves in their residence when they were away or would leave it as an investment for later. Much of this treasure became lost. The parables reference this and the idea of lost things in other places of scripture such as the prodigal son. Common law dictated that if you found treasure like this you could keep it.5 In other words, don’t get hung up in the story with the morality of keeping hidden treasure, give Jesus the benefit of the doubt that there were no questionable ethics going on within the narrative.

The treasure is Jesus and free gift that He has brought from heaven to earth to us, it was intended to remain hidden but to be brought to the lite and shared for the betterment of others. This is a picture of the sort of kingdom prosperity God offers, not established from a worldly perspective or gain, but as an experience to truly experience what is worth from a kingdom perspective.

BUY THE FIELD – This is a harder one. Some have deduced the idea of earthly wealth prosperity thinking here. They use this as an angle to buy and control the world or nations. I don’t think the text suggest that, in fact quite the opposite. That notion seems to actually be very counter to the thrust of the narrative. This act illustrates the joy and dedication required to embrace spiritual wealth over worldly possessions. The parable emphasizes that the Kingdom of Heaven is worth everything, and believers are called to prioritize it above all else. The pursuit of righteousness is costly in some regard and requires strategic stewardship.

JOY – The biblical definition of joy says that joy is a feeling of good pleasure and happiness that is dependent on who Jesus is rather than on who we are or what is happening around us. Joy comes from the Holy Spirit, abiding in God’s presence and from hope in His word.

Biblical joy can be a confusing thing, especially since it’s something that doesn’t come just in the best of times. Because it is dependent on who Jesus is and God’s presence in us as the Holy Spirit, biblical joy is accessible to us even in the worst of times, and it can never be taken away from us. In Jesus’ upside-down kingdom sometimes joy even comes in tribulation.

“So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.” —John 16:22 ESV

The Bible is full of stories of real people’s brokenness and hardships, yet somehow it is also filled with songs of praise to God and stories of incredible hope and joy. A central theme to the kingdom of God is that Jesus came that we might have Joy in abundance.

Today, we can find true, lasting joy in God’s word and by asking the Holy Spirit for help. Because of this, biblical joy is accessible to us even in the worst of times and is found in having a relationship with our Savior, Jesus Christ – THE TREASURE OF LIFE. I pray that you find this treasure, live it out as part of the devoted remnant and bear the fruit of this gift with others in your life.

Feel free to download and use this discussion guide for you small group.

MATT 1344 treasure handoutDownload
  1. https://www.raystedman.org/new-testament/matthew/the-case-of-the-buried-treasure ↩︎
  2. Hemer, Colin J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (JSOT Press, 1989), p. 283 ↩︎
  3. Briant, Pierre (January 2002). From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Eisenbrauns. p. 36. ISBN 9781575061207. ↩︎
  4. France, R. T. (2005). “Kingdom of God”. In Vanhoozer, Kevin J.; Bartholomew, Craig G.; Treier, Daniel J.; Wright, Nicholas Thomas (eds.). Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. pp. 420–422. ISBN 978-0-8010-2694-2. ↩︎
  5. Oras, Ester (2012), “Importance of terms: What is a wealth deposit?”, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 22: 61–82, doi:10.5334/pia.403
    . ↩︎
Comments Off on MATT 13:44 Hidden Treasure Discussion Posted in ADVENTURE

Peace Under Pressure

Posted by expedition44 on

Navigating Difficult People the Way of Jesus

Big Idea

Biblical peace is not avoidance or passivity.
It is authority under God’s order and control, rooted in God’s presence, shaped by love, and expressed through wise, restrained action.

Jesus shows us how to remain grounded—even when others are hostile, manipulative, or exhausting.

Core Text

John 14:27 –
“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you… Do not let your hearts be troubled.”

Jesus offers a peace that does not remove difficult people but changes how we meet them.

Jesus’ Pattern for Handling Difficult People

Jesus encountered criticism, traps, hostility, and betrayal constantly.
His responses were never reactive—but always intentional.

1. Authority Without Harshness

Jesus never acted from superiority or pride.
He embodied meekness—strength under control.

Sermon on the Mount

  • “Blessed are the meek…” (Matt. 5:5)
  • “Love your enemies… pray for those who persecute you.” (Matt. 5:44)

Discussion Prompt:
How is meekness different from weakness in real-life conflict?

2. Knowing When to Speak—and When Not To

Jesus did not feel the need to answer every accusation.

  • Silence: John 8:6 — Jesus says nothing when pressed to condemn
  • Measured rebuke: John 8:47 — “Whoever belongs to God hears God’s words.”

Sermon on the Mount

  • “Do not throw your pearls before pigs.” (Matt. 7:6)

Discussion Prompt:
When is silence wise—and when does silence become avoidance?

3. Asking Questions Instead of Taking Bait

Jesus often answered hostility with questions that exposed motives.

  • Mark 11:28–29 — Jesus responds to a challenge with a question
  • Luke 10:26 — “What is written in the Law?”

Sermon on the Mount

  • “Why do you look at the speck… and ignore the plank?” (Matt. 7:3)

Discussion Prompt:
How do good questions slow down reactive conflict?

4. Grounding Conflict in Scripture, Not Emotion

Jesus didn’t argue opinions—He returned people to God’s word.

  • Mark 10:2–3 — “What did Moses command you?”
  • Matthew 5 — Jesus reframes the Law toward the heart

Discussion Prompt:
How does Scripture reframe conflict beyond “winning”?

5. Inviting Reflection Through Story

Jesus often told stories instead of making accusations.

  • Luke 7:40–42 — A parable that invites self-recognition

Sermon on the Mount

  • Parables and images that confront without crushing

Discussion Prompt:
Why do stories disarm defensiveness better than direct confrontation?

Bringing It Together

Jesus’ peace does not make us passive.
It makes us anchored.

  • Anchored in God’s presence (John 14:23)
  • Anchored in love, not ego (Matt. 5–7)
  • Anchored enough to respond wisely instead of reactively

Closing Question

Where are you facing a difficult person or situation right now—
and which response of Jesus might God be inviting you to practice?

Comments Off on Peace Under Pressure Posted in ADVENTURE

Merry Christmas – Christ in us

Posted by expedition44 on

Today is the one time the entire world thinks about Jesus and what it means to joyfully live Him out. Christmas begins with God’s desire to dwell with and in us. Christ takes root in our hearts and minds; and is embodied in our daily lives. Sustained by God’s grace, I pray that this Christmas may reflect His beauty into the world He lovingly created and sustains. May you be drawn to His presence and receive His gifts today and evermore.

This is why Christmas fills us with such deep joy. At Christmas, theology is no longer only spoken or studied—it is wrapped in flesh and given to us in Christ Jesus. God comes near, light enters the darkness, and we are invited to rejoice and be captivated by Him. The Christmas story reminds us that even in trial and tribulation Christ saved us for both eternity and to live Him out today – being Christ’s image (He dwells in us) that brings purpose and healing from Heaven to earth. I pray that today you might consider what it means to be God’s presence and light to a broken world, as Christ dwells in you.

hope – peace – joy & love is just the beginning

Comments Off on Merry Christmas – Christ in us Posted in ADVENTURE

Seminary students – ambassadors of unity or disunity?

Posted by expedition44 on

I have always been of the mindset that open, transparent, and raw conversation is what the Bible means by iron sharpening iron or what gives way to a “Mars Hill” encounter1. The church needs these conversations, and it is what keeps people in check and often humble. But the Bible is also very clear that these interactions need to be in a Galatians 5 spirit of unity. I love teaching/preaching styles where there is an interactive group dynamic. That is typically the model we see with Jesus and Paul in the first century church, questions, more questions questioning the first question, and perhaps some answers or at least implications to answers2. One of the great experiences of attending a good non-denominational seminary is that your taught to understand this style of communication better. I hate to call it a way of honoring theological diversity because diversity has taken on connotations of “wokeness” and I don’t think the two perspectives are the same. But we should return to this first century theological respect within the realm of edification for each other. This “Mars Hill” way of respecting other people’s theology is accepting diversity as much as it is challenging it.3 Sometimes there is a fine line. Will you be an agent of unity or disunity?

BRIAN ZAHND PRAYER SCHOOL

Last week our TKC students spent some time with Brian Zahnd in prayer school. One student asked if he had any suggestions for early seminary students. His reply was to not teach on something as soon as it comes to mind. Let it sit with your spirit for a while. John Walton says a “good theologian should change their mind occasionally” which holds the same regards. Give yourself a season to consider things. If you are looking for unbiased truth, let it marinade for a while. That is one of the best aspects of a seminary experience. You don’t have to act like you know everything. In seminary or not, I hope you never lose that. Glean Glean Glean.

Those that were in the TKC prayer school also might remember my last question for Brian. It was a little long and drawn out but it was worded in a way that (although might be deemed in disagreement to what he was teaching) was shrouded with humble words of edification. And Brian then reciprocally answered in deep respect and honor. It was a beautiful interchange and small mosaic of what the church might better look like working through differences in theological opinion.

REFORMED TENDENCIES

I am not reformed, and in some senses that word might describe the most opposite of my theological views, but I have several great friends and colleagues that go that way and they are some of my dearest advocates. I have a deep respect for their views and beliefs and realize that when we meet Jesus, one of us is going to find out that our theology is slightly off. I always hope that it isn’t me, but my good friends are of course saying the same thing; and we both understand this sense and have a deep respect for the hopefully well-founded views of our friends even if we don’t agree. If you have been around me for much time at all, you have probably heard me say something like, “that’s a good theological view… that I don’t hold.” I think there is a place for that sort of thinking. I should pause here and say that I believe it is important to stay Biblical. If the Bible clearly says something in multiple places, we need to be very careful to not do what is right in our own eyes and stick with Biblical theology.4

What I (and I believe the better part of the theological church) doesn’t have a lot of room for is “dogmatic charisma” insisting your particular view is the right one and even teaching it as if the Bible clearly says it, when there are likely several other “Biblical” views or interpretations on the subject. The clearest imagery of this is within reformed theology. For instance, many that hold to a reformed view of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)5 would say that their view is the only “Biblical” view. That comes off as narrow and dogmatic when even their own theologians would admit there are at least a handful of other views of atonement held since the early church6. Reformed theology is known for doing this sort of “our way or the highway” kind of dogmatics.

EXAMPLES

For instance, if we look at particular translated Biblical words such as “sin” which in the Greek is Hamartia or election which in Greek would be eklektos, to say that there is only 1 doctrine of sin or election; or similarly to refer to “one doctrine of election” such as the reformed understanding of unconditional election within the TULIP acronym as “THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ELECTION” is simply not philosophically or ontologically correct regardless of what position you hold.7

As an example, if you went to Calvin College (and I just use them because their very name implies, they teach Calvinism and are affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church denomination) and they taught “the doctrine of election” it might make sense (to an extent) as part of the indoctrination of their theological teachings. You attend Calvin to learn Calvinism, so in this sense if you attend a class called “THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION” it is understood that you are learning their denominational version of that subject. But if you took that same word or phrase outside of Calvin College, people would say you hold a specific version or type of that view specifically a Calvinistic view of election… or they might say you have been indoctrinated by your denominational views. Which I get has some negative connotations to it today, but I don’t use it in that sense. That is what indoctrination means.8

UNDERMINING SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY

When someone tries to exert their authority or view as the “only option” or the “correct option” it undermines the mystery of the gospel and disrespects other people’s opinion to interpret scripture differently. But at the same time. I also think there is a place for some of this. There are many different churches largely because people see things differently. Even within the same denomination there will be slightly different understandings. Where do you draw the line? That’s a great question that only you can determine through the Holy Spirit.

Going back to our example – In the case of “sin doctrines” we have several doctrines that not everyone holds to such as original/imputed, propitiation/expiation, inherent/sin, nature personal/communal, moral/religious/social, mortal/venial, total depravity/righteousness, to name a few9. Therefore, to my point earlier, if you went to Calvin College, you might take a class on the doctrine of sin, which would indoctrinate you to the reformed view of Sin… but even then within Calvinism, you’re going to get some people that view these things differently, therefore the better title of the class might be “doctrines of Sin” to which you explore all of the doctrines… which is what you would likely get at a good unbiased non-denominational seminary.

In terms of election there are several views that could be constructed from the Bible, not simply one. The primary debate centers on whether God’s choice is unconditional (based solely on His sovereign will) or conditional (based on His foreknowledge of human faith)10. Obviously, you understand Armenians and Calvinist see this issue similarly yet would divide on some important aspects11. Wesleyans have their own version12, and then you need to define how individual or corporate election could differ which is a point of contention even within each of the above paradigms. Once you move thoroughly away from churches that reside with reformed theology and get into the free will churches (typically more spirit led) you might see even more differences within theology of election. It is always tricky when you are trying to adhere to a denominational preference. There will be difficulties somewhere along the way. Yet I also respect the agreement of theological ideals within the lens of scripture and sometimes denominational preferences might aid in this way. Perhaps a council has gone before you to interpret how the differing constructs work in harmony together.

NARROW MINDEDNESS

My point is, to try not to cast a personal view on someone proposing your view as “the only theologically Biblical supposition” as this would seem very narrow minded to the mystery of the faith and a slap in the face to so many of the great church fathers that felt differently about the subjects. We need to respect commonly held theological views, sometimes even if you feel personally, they are terrible or borderline not biblical in their interpretational methodology.

As the internet holds theological dumpster fires constantly (that I usually suggest steering clear of), I would propose that when you don’t agree with something written, you might connect your perspectives within the type of theology that you view as perhaps “better” or “what you have found to be true” rather than juxtapose that your view is the “only” viable view in the Bible (which I would deem as inaccurate or wrong regardless of what view you hold.) Another way of more respectfully addressing this subject would be… to say something like “after a significant amount of research I have landed understanding this topic a little bit differently according to your reformed view of total depravity and election, let me explain how I would see it slightly differently and perhaps it could influence your thoughts on the subject.” Phrasing something this way comes off as significantly more respectful and implements edification.

When people tort their personal theological views as the only Biblical option or possibly even the best option, it also might be “irreverent” before the LORD.13 To think that what you believe is completely true – as if it were the infallible word of the LORD revealed by Jesus himself to you personally (do you see how that could be construed as Joseph Smith Cult type of thinking) shows a narrow-minded approach to the faith rather than a mature approach to faithful interpretation proposing that your view might make the most theological sense. There are lots of great theologians and church fathers that think differently than what you are proposing. Therefore, proposing that your view is unequivocally the correct view amongst many other “biblical interpretive” views is narrow at best and as I have implied- might be irreverent.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Lastly, I would also consider caution in this regard, some would not view such dogmatic spirit within the unity of the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4, and Romans 12. I believe we as a church can do better and when we have done, I pray that we take on a better spirit and truly find the edification of the church and the intention of iron sharpening iron. Let’s edify and create unity in the body, not disunity. So, you can live in this way, and do your part as a better ambassador, but the rest of the world might not… Sounds a bit like the mission Christ was on doesn’t it!

Dr. Will Ryan

  1. https://digitalbible.ca/article-page/modern-topics-what-does-the-bible-say-about-mars-hill ↩︎
  2. Schiffman, Lawrence H. (2003). Jon Bloomberg; Samuel Kapustin (eds.). Understanding Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Jersey, NJ: KTAV. ISBN 9780881258134. ↩︎
  3. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation:A Textbook of Hermeneutics, 3rd rev ed (Baker Academic, 1980), 3. ↩︎
  4. Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (David C. Cook, 1991), 22. ↩︎
  5.  Elwell, Walter A. (May 2001). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker Academic. p. 990. ISBN 978-0-8010-2075-9.  ↩︎
  6. Christus Victor – Jesus defeats Satan, sin, and death to free humanity.
    Ransom Theory – Jesus’ death is a ransom paid to free humanity from bondage.
    Moral Influence Theory – Jesus’ life and death show God’s love and inspire us to change.
    Satisfaction Theory – Jesus satisfies the honor of God that human sin offended.
    Penal Substitution – Jesus takes the punishment we deserve so we can be forgiven.
    Governmental Theory – Jesus’ death upholds God’s moral law so forgiveness is possible.
    Recapitulation – Jesus “re-does” the human story correctly, restoring humanity. ↩︎
  7. Sproul, R. C. (April 1, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Unconditional Election”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. Unconditional election is another term that I think can be a bit misleading, so I prefer to use the term sovereign election. ↩︎
  8.  גרינבוים, יוסף (27 October 2025). “כובעים צהובים וסמל החטופים: אלפי ילדים הפגינו בכלא 10 • הרב סורוצקין: ‘החטופים שלנו. אנחנו עשינו את הניסים הגדולים'”. חרדים10. ↩︎
  9. Burson, Scott R. (13 September 2016). Brian McLaren in Focus: A New Kind of Apologetic. ACU Press. ISBN 978-0-89112-650-8. ↩︎
  10. Hägglund, Bengt (2007) [1968]. Teologins historia [History of Theology] (in German). Translated by Gene J. Lund (4th rev. ed.). St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 139–140. ISBN 978-0758613486. ↩︎
  11. Olson, Roger E. (2014). Arminianism FAQ: Everything You Always Wanted to Know. Franklin, Tennessee: Seebed. ISBN 978-1-62824-162-4. ↩︎
  12. Osborne, Grant R.; Trueman, Carl R.; Hammett, John S. (2015). Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: 3 views. Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Academic. ISBN 9781433669712. ↩︎
  13. Niebuhr, Reinhold (1986-01-01). The Essential Reinhold Niebuhr: Selected Essays and Addresses. Yale University Press. pp. xv–xvi. ISBN 978-0-300-16264-6. ↩︎
Comments Off on Seminary students – ambassadors of unity or disunity? Posted in ADVENTURE

Taking the name of the Lord in vain Ex 20:7

Posted by expedition44 on

Exodus 20:7 tells us not to use God’s name in vain, this is the third commandment that is given to the nation of Israel. It says, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” God’s people are His image-bearers. Most people understand this as simply swearing, and it certainly can mean that, but it means significantly more than that.1

The Hebrew word we translate as “vain” (שָׁוְא – shav’) and often is translated as falsely, lie, lying, vain, vanity. Think about the depth of that for a minute. Shav {shav}; comes from the same root as the Hebrew word show’ שׁוֹא in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) or morally (especially guile); figuratively idolatry (as false, subjective), uselessness (as deceptive, objective; also adverbially, in vain).2 In other words, you are giving up your commission as an ambassador of GOOD – TOV – GOD giving it up for the opposite, to be an agent of destruction, idolatry, or deception.

I have often preached on this in depth. You can download the message here.

In ancient culture, your name meant something. It had value; it told others who you were. And the same is true with the name of God. His name has meaning and power. It’s holy. Therefore, we shouldn’t use it as if it’s empty, hollow, worthless, or in vain. 

From the earliest biblical writings (e.g., Genesis, Exodus), God’s name (often represented as YHWH, sometimes transliterated “Yahweh”) has been profoundly revered. Archaeological finds from the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (which date from roughly 200 BC to AD 70) show extreme care taken by scribes when writing God’s name, indicating the reverence the ancient Hebrews held.3

Misconceptions About “Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain”

Misunderstandings often occur when people assume the third commandment merely prohibits using God’s name as an expletive. While profanity is a blatant violation, there are other forms of misuse:

1. Swearing Falsely: Invoking God’s name to lend credibility to a lie or breaking an oath that was made in His name.

2. Empty Rituals: Reciting God’s name thoughtlessly through rote repetition or superstition, stripping it of genuine reverence.

3. Hypocrisy: Claiming to represent God-in speech, action, or attitude-while behaving in a way that contradicts His character and Word.

These violations flow from failing to acknowledge Scripture’s teaching that our speech should be truthful, pure, and honoring to the Lord (cf. Ephesians 4:29; James 5:12).

Broader Implications in Scripture

In the Old Testament, God’s name symbolizes His covenant presence among His people. The prophet Malachi delivers a strong rebuke to priests for not honoring God’s name (Malachi 1:6-14), showing divine displeasure toward leaders who degrade His name by their actions.4

In the New Testament, the principle deepens. Jesus teaches us to pray, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name” (Matthew 6:9). This “hallowing” is the observation of God’s holiness; it is the polar opposite of treating His name in vain.

Proper Use of the Lord’s Name

Rather than merely avoiding sin, believers are to cultivate a holy approach to God’s name:

1. Worship and Awe: Scripture exemplifies worshipers who honor God’s name in praise (Psalm 29:2: “Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His name…”).

2. Prayer: Jesus’ model prayer begins with magnifying God’s name (Matthew 6:9).

3. Evangelism and Testimony: Speaking of God’s name reverently when sharing faith with others, representing God’s character faithfully.

When we use God’s name in prayer, worship, or conversation, we affirm His nature and maintain the holiness that sets Him apart from all creation.

Connection to Christ and Salvation

The New Testament teaches that Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation. His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) affirms all He taught, including the necessity of honoring God’s name. Indeed, the apostles proclaim that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

This underscores the idea that God’s name and His power to save are inextricably linked. If we believe that God became flesh in Jesus Christ, rose from the dead, and offers salvation, then how we address and regard His name is vitally important. It is more than mere words; it is our lifeline.

Conclusion

Taking the Lord’s name in vain encompasses every misuse or trivialization of the divine name-whether through profanity, false oaths, or hollow rituals. The commandment, rooted in the holiness of God’s name, remains relevant both in ancient and modern contexts.

From historical manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls to modern theological research, the evidence consistently points to the enormous weight the biblical writers placed on God’s name. The consistent accuracy and transmission of these passages through centuries underscores how believers have guardrailed the truth about such matters. Respecting and revering that name is integral to honoring who God truly is.

For those within the faith, this observance also becomes a testimony of devotion. For those investigating Scripture’s claims, seeing how God’s name is treated with the utmost seriousness offers insight into the Bible’s broader moral and theological framework.

Indeed, “the name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe” (Proverbs 18:10). Let it ever be used with reverence and awe.5

  1. Kitz, Anne Marie (2019). “The Verb *yahway”. Journal of Biblical Literature. 138 (1): 39–62. ↩︎
  2. Wurthwein, Ernst; Fischer, Alexander Achilles (2014). The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. 264. ISBN 978-0-8028-6680-6.  ↩︎
  3. Wilkinson, Robert J. (2015). Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God – From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-28817-1 ↩︎
  4. Kurtz, Johann Heinrich (1859). History of the Old Covenant. Translated by Edersheim, A. p. 214. ↩︎
  5. The Bible Hub ↩︎

Thanksgiving = OPEN HANDS

Posted by expedition44 on

Thanksgiving isn’t a religious Holiday, but it might be rooted in gratitude which is certainly a core Biblical theme.

Prayers of thanks and special thanksgiving ceremonies are common among most religions after harvests and at other times of the year.1 Most people don’t realize that the Thanksgiving holiday’s history in North America is actually rooted in English traditions dating from the Protestant Reformation.2 Special thanksgiving religious services became mandatory by law during the reign of Henry VIII.3  Before 1536 there were 95 Church holidays, plus every Sunday, when people were required to attend church and forego work. The Puritan party in the Anglican Church wished to eliminate all Church holidays apart from the weekly Lord’s Day, including the traditional church feasts (now typically associated with ancient Judaism) which is what started the protest reformation, or “protesting” of the church married government.

So fast forward about 100 years later and you get to the story that you probably thought started Thanksgiving. Thirty-eight English settlers aboard the ship Margaret arrived by way of the James River to Charles City County, Virginia on December 4, 1619. The landing was immediately followed by a religious celebration, specifically dictated by the group’s charter from the London Company, in accordance with the English government mandates still in effect described in the paragraph above. The charter declared, “that the day of our ships arrival at the place assigned for plantation in the land of Virginia shall be yearly and perpetually kept holy as a day of thanksgiving to Almighty God.”4 Sometimes, I think wouldn’t it be great if our government had that kind of admiration for the Lord, maybe they did at one time. But as history would show, even the conservative Christians still had their sum of issues with that government, and rightly so.

You might have made the connection above; the church of England was actually mandating the celebration of the Biblical feasts given in the Torah to Israel. Which is bizarre to us today, the government in the 1500’s was actually mandating people by law to follow the Bible. I actually don’t like much of any government stipulations telling us what we can and can’t do, but this is still very interesting to me.

Sukkot, also known as the Feast of Tabernacles or Feast of Booths, is a Torah-commanded  observance celebrated for seven days, beginning on the 15th day of the month of Tishrei. It was one of the three Pilgrimage Festivals on which Israelites were commanded to make a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem. Biblically an autumn harvest festival and a commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt.5

The names used in the Bible is specifically “Festival of Ingathering” or “Harvest Festival”, חַג הָאָסִיף, and “Festival of Booths”  חג הסכות, this corresponds to the double significance of Sukkot. The one mentioned in the Book of Exodus is agricultural in nature—”Festival of Ingathering at the year’s end” (Exodus 34:22)—and marks the end of the harvest time and thus of the agricultural year in the Land of Israel. The more elaborate religious significance from the Book of Leviticus is that of commemorating the Exodus and the dependence of the Israelites on the will of God (Leviticus 23:42–43). They describe the same observed festival.6

Don’t miss this – the harvest festival was rooted in the work of your hands connected to sacred soil. It was circular (dance of grace language). The Lord gave you a gift of grace tied to a provision in sacred land and connected to Him continually dwelling amongst them. Taking up residence in their most intimate places which culminated in Jesus literally residing in the temple of your heart. The response should be open hands back unto the LORD.

Every time you open your hands unto the LORD you should be reminded of His gift of Grace.

Over the years, Thanksgiving has traditionally become celebrated much later than Sukkot (which was October 7-13 this year, Thanksgiving in the US is the last Thursday in November) and has thus likely separated any sort of comparison or association of the two within the Evangelical United States. But the idea of inviting your family and guests to your Thanksgiving feast and taking on a mindset of Gratitude certainly originated in the Bible around this feast.7

The Hebrew word sukkoṯ is the plural of sukkah (‘booth’ or ‘tabernacle’) – we might simply call these tents in English. As stated in Leviticus these were the fragile dwellings in which the Israelites dwelled during their 40 years of travel in the desert after the Exodus from slavery in Egypt. The Lord resided their with them as an image of enduring faithfulness. For the last several thousand years, throughout those observing the Biblical holiday, meals are eaten inside the sukkah and many people sleep there as well. Within traditional Judaism, this is a mitzvah, or commandment, to ‘dwell’ in the sukkah. There was also an emphasis (as with all the Biblical feasts) to pass this on orally and in spirit to your children.

Sukkot was and is a reminder to return to simple living in gratitude to dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

This brings us to Thanksgiving celebrated in modern America. What do we do with it? Do we make it about Jesus? Well, if you are a devout follower shouldn’t everything be about Jesus? Do we take advantage of the world celebrating a theme that clearly originated in the Bible to invite those into our home and show them the Love of Jesus? That sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it? At least Thanksgiving unlike Christmas and Easter isn’t steeped in all sorts of pagan religion; there is a great argument that it is primarily of Biblical origins.

Thanksgiving is certainly a key Biblical theme, but I prefer the word gratitude.

And I shall lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love; and I will meditate on Your statutes.  Psalm 119:48  NASB

Lift up my hands – וְאֶשָּׂ֚א כַפַּ֗י אֶל־מִ֖צְו‍ֹתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָהָ֗בְתִּי וְאָשִׂ֥יחָה בְחֻקֶּֽיךָ

Miṣwâ, is a command language, if your faithful, you do this. Ahēb, to love (“that I love”), and śîaḥ, to meditate (but not silently, aloud in communal part).  The verb is nāśāʾ, to lift, carry, or take.  But there is no nun in the form in this verse. That is strange, but it is because the future tense drops the nun and becomes (first person singular) אֶשָּׂא.  So, we have אֶשָּׂא preceded by the prefixed vav.  And that means it should be “I lifted up my hands.”  The psalmist isn’t anticipating a future gesture of gratitude to God for His commandments.  He has already made the gesture, just as in the previous verse, he has already delighted in the fatherly order God provided. The psalmist certainly believes in this as a command to generations that follow. There are several Torah verses that seem to imply this was perceived as a soft command by Yahweh but we don’t really every get this directly from His hand. Therefore, it hasn’t carried over to evangelical Christianity in that way, although it is certainly counted in the 613 laws. That should hit you a little harder next time you’re in church and people are raising their hands in praise. And some people would believe that Paul was reiterating the keeping of this command in 1 Timothy 2:8 which also takes a similar imperative.

This text finishes with the words “hands” (kappa – kap). Palm of the hand is the best translation here, but kap is also used of hands spread out in prayer in Ex 29:25 and Isa 1:15. “8  The psalmist chooses a rather rare word to describe hands instead of the usual word yad to make sure that we pause and reflect upon a more specific act. 

Palms upward is a gesture for receptive gratitude. So as long as you are thinking about this next time you worship, to be precise, your hands are not together like you’re praying on your knees or at the table, not straight up over your head like your praying for fire from heaven, not clenched like the Pharisee, but open to receive which really meant hear according to the Shema – in a submissive posture, and perhaps not even extended above one’s head. This is the posture of a grateful servant who has received something wonderful and valuable from a loving master. 

Many scholars believe that Jesus was alluding to this in Matt 6:5. The NIV reads,

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

But when you read the Greek, you will notice that the phrase “standing to pray” comes off as idiomatic. In Greek the words “standing and receive” are connected when is used by Jesus in a clever word play. Standing shouldn’t be read as the emphasis of the verse. The emphasis is posture, but you can see how that then becomes a play on words. Jesus hits it on the head, their “uprightness” was likely showing in their posture of hands “standing” over their heads, it wasn’t a picture of humble submission. Or they were upright not kneeling hands out of submission to the Lord. In other words, you receive what God has for you in submission with a humble heart posture of gratitude. If you miss this, the world is your reward. I also don’t believe the hermeneutic leads us to legalism over the posture of our body or hands, but rather the aims at the heart. Some believe that Jesus here was reminding the church that his mission was humble and as that of a lowly shepherd, not high in the sky as a luminary or god over them. His mission was to invite the world to join this humble calling steeped in devotion. Perhaps the first century religious culture had lost their humble approach to the Lord, and this was in part the emphasis of Jesus. The “euangelion” that brought salvation, freedom and peace wrapped in humility the world couldn’t fathom.

Hands outstretched, palms open to Jesus shows Gratitude bathed in submission and brings devotion ushering heaven to earth.

Brian Zahnd recently challenged some TKC students to return to a humble place of more traditional humility of prayer and worship before the LORD.
  1. Hodgson, Godfrey (2006). A Great and Godly Adventure; The Pilgrims and the Myth of the First Thanksgiving. New York: Public Affairs. p. 212. ISBN 978-1586483739. ↩︎
  2. Baker, James W. (2009). Thanksgiving: The Biography of an American Holiday. UPNE. ISBN 978-1-58465-801-6. ↩︎
  3. Forbes, Bruce David (October 27, 2015). America’s Favorite Holidays: Candid Histories. University of California Press. p. 155. ISBN 978-0-520-28472-2. ↩︎
  4. Alvin J. Schmidt (2004). How Christianity Changed the World. Zondervan. ISBN 9780310264491. Archived from the original on January 17, 2023. ↩︎
  5. Farber, Zev. “The Origins of Sukkot”. http://www.thetorah.com. ↩︎
  6. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. (2020). “The Origins and Ancient History of Sukkot”. A History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods. Brown Judaic Studies. ↩︎
  7.  “The Ushpizin”. Library. Chabad. October 20, 2024. ↩︎
  8. Archer, G. L. (1999). 1022 כפף. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 452). Moody Press. ↩︎

Are you leaving Jesus on the Cross?

Posted by expedition44 on

Anyone else sometimes feel like our laser and lightshow, skinny jeans and smoke machine Christian culture has sort of lost the sacred approach that seems to be so rich to the textures of the Bible? One prominent blogger says, “My Father’s House Shall be a House of… Entertainment?”1 I agree with much of his sentiment. I grew up attending the classic white steepled church adorned by stained glass telling the story of the covenant community that had faithfully gone before us, and I have to say when I return to a more traditional looking church building there is just something that feels more sacred than the auditoriums parading led walls bigger than the strip of Las Vegas. But perhaps even more than a steeple and stained glass, I long for an antiquated upper room with a table set for me.2 But at the same time, I love the diversity of the church and find a place for nearly every recipe of the faith.

Recently TKC students went to a Brian Zahnd Prayer school. Brian started in the Jesus Movement3 and shifted into Word of Faith.4 From there he had a deeper bought with Theology and found himself turning back the pages to a more conservative Anglican5, or Eastern Orthodox6 approach. Amongst other things he brought back the liturgy7 into his prayers. One of the other things that you will see in his church is a return to icons8, specifically Jesus on the cross. Before I go any further, I love Brian Zahnd. If you have a chance to attend one of his prayer schools, you will be immensely blessed. I can’t recommend the school or any of his soon to be 12 books enough. All of it is life changing and will bear great fruit for the kingdom.

As much as I LOVED THIS endeavor, I have to admit, I still found myself struggling with the longer liturgy, iconography, beads, repetition and chants (and I chant in Hebrew regularly). I know so many people that were “saved” from all of this. There are some things about the more liturgical experiences I love, and some things that I don’t. I love the sacred approach and the stressing of Biblical theology; but I also don’t want to harness or put the moving of the Holy Spirit in a box (which to be clear I don’t think Brian does.) I also have never felt good about iconography that leaves Jesus on the cross.

“Being disguised under the disfigurement of an ugly crucifixion and death, Christ upon the cross is paradoxically they clearest revelation of who God is.” – Brian Zahnd

I agree with his quote. In fact, I think it is right on. But I am not sure I want to “stay” there or make that my dwelling place. I feel like to do so sort of takes a perspective similar to when those of the reformed mindset that get so bound by total depravity (and the other TULIP ideology)9 that they can never emerge from that mindset, affirm their new life and identity in Christ and live in victorious sanctified life here and now bringing Heaven to earth – in the words of NT Wright.10

As I write this, I am asking myself (as all good theologians should do)11 to be unbiased and consider what is the best approach according to the scripture and the revelation of Jesus Christ. I will invite you to a Mars Hill experience12 with me. Let’s consider the tough questions. Why focus on the image of Jesus on the cross? Some would say we are leaving Jesus on the cross, not celebrating the triumph of the resurrection ascension and enthronement of Jesus that is the completed image of living a complete sanctified life.13

Others will say the cross by itself is an abstraction of Jesus.14

To say it a different way… A beaten, humiliated man dying on a cross doesn’t seem like we “picked a winner…”15 But as you likely know if you are reading this, that is the worlds way of thinking. We as Christian’s see the beauty in the humble sacrifice (Beauty will save the world) and see that through Him the meek will inherit the earth. This is upside down or backwards kingdom ideology – the first shall be last kingdom that Expedition 44 has become known for. Christ (the meek) inherited the earth & we are sons and daughters of God and therefore we also inherit His kingdom. We lead humbly from beneath in peace. Jesus’ way of leading puts devotion and service ahead of prominence and power. This perspective aligns with the concept of servant leadership, where the leader serves others rather than seeking to dominate or assert authority over people. 16

Yes, I know all of that and do my best to live it out. In the same way, I can see how the image of Christ on the cross is a great iconic missional reminder of what we should be doing each and every day.

Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. Luke 9:23

However, with all that said, so much of the voice of Jesus and message that follows is to claim the full revelation of Jesus which is post enthronement -His spirit poured out into us that we might represent the One that has “won” or “championed” the world.17

Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the kick butt Jesus icon18 works. I even sometimes struggle with the battle language in Christianity (when the battle belongs to the Lord not us); but Jesus is both the Lion and the Lamb. Let’s not lose sight of either.

My primary problem with leaving Jesus on the cross is that scripture tells me that my identity isn’t in my former defeated person but is now grafted into the glory of the enthroned Christ. In some ways I see the transformation of the cross as a caricature or mosaic (comparison image) of my personal transformation enthroned by Him as a royal holy ruler -not defeated. To leave Christ on the cross doesn’t seem to match the thrust of 2 Corinthians 5 following my example to be like Jesus in total transformation.19

The Greeks believed that peace (eirḗnē) was simply the small intermission between war (pólemos) and war was (and possibly should be) the natural state of the world.20  This Greek idea stands in opposition to shālôm, the Hebraic idea of well-being that was and is the intended condition of humanity.  shālôm is the gift of YHVH. But shālôm is not just the peace between the wars, but the balance that found revelation in Jesus Christ Himself. “Peace I leave you, My peace I give you; not as the world gives, do I give to you.  Do not let your hearts be troubled, nor fearful” (John 14:27 NASB). 

I want to dwell on the complete revelation of Jesus, that is a balance of the cross and the enthroned king.

Will Ryan Th.D.

  1. https://jaronalexander.medium.com/skinny-jeans-and-smoke-machines-11e3d6ee28b ↩︎
  2. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges on Acts 1, “The eleven were the tenants of the upper room, to which the other disciples resorted for conference and communion”. ↩︎
  3. Bustraan, R. A. (2014). The Jesus People Movement: A Story of Spiritual Revolution Among the Hippies. Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1620324646. ↩︎
  4. Harrison, Milmon F. (2005). Righteous Riches: The Word of Faith Movement in Contemporary African American Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195153880. ↩︎
  5. “What it means to be an Anglican”. Church of England. Archived from the original on 30 August 2011. ↩︎
  6. “The Orthodox Faith – Volume I – Doctrine and Scripture – The Symbol of Faith – Resurrection”. http://www.oca.org. ↩︎
  7. Baldovin, John F., SJ (2008) Reforming the Liturgy: a Response to the Critics. The Liturgical Press ↩︎
  8. Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. Oxford 1939. ↩︎
  9. Sproul, R. C. (2016). What Is Reformed Theology?: Understanding the Basics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-8010-1846-6. ↩︎
  10. Van Biema, David (7 February 2008). “Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop”. Time. Archived from the original on 9 February 2008. ↩︎
  11. Kogan, Michael S. 1995. “Toward a Jewish Theology of Christianity.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 32(1):89–106.  ↩︎
  12. Bruce, F.F. The Acts of the Apostles. The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952). 335. ↩︎
  13. Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 401, 1988: “The theme of Christ’s heavenly session, announced here by the statement he sat down at the right hand of God, .. Hebrews 8:1 “we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven”)” ↩︎
  14. Clark, Elizabeth Ann (1999). Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-00512-6. ↩︎
  15. Leithart, Peter (July 1995). “When the Son Is Glorified”. Biblical Horizons. 75. Retrieved 3 May 2012. ↩︎
  16.  Ignatius of Antioch. The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp. IV. ↩︎
  17. https://www.faiththeevidence.com/faith-evidence-blog-_1/jesus-our-champion ↩︎
  18. https://thinkchristian.net/jesusfreaks-butt-kicking-christ ↩︎
  19. Dallas Willard – Renovation of the Heart proposes that the human self is made up of several interrelated components: one’s spirit, i.e. one’s “heart” or “will”; one’s mind, or the collection of one’s thoughts and feelings; the body; one’s social context; and one’s soul. Willard argues that one’s identity is largely a function of how those components are subordinated to one another, and whether the whole is subordinated to God. Willard argues that popular rejection of subordination to God and the dominance of the body and feelings has resulted in addictions and futile pursuits of stimulation for the body or feelings. Willard argues that the subordinated alignment of one’s being can be corrected through apprenticeship to Jesus Christ, which renovates one’s heart. ↩︎
  20. Josephus, Jewish War, 1.370 (Loeb ed.) ↩︎