Category Archives: 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.) ↩︎

Just Keep Breathing!

Posted by expedition44 on

A Journey of Triumph over Tragedy By Dr. R. Victor Gray

Just keep breathing is a theology in the key of grace. God isn’t distant, He is right there with you, literally residing in the core of your very being. God is love—and love is what holds it all together. 

Sometimes we experience tragedy and it nearly kills us. In Chicago, Illinois, on April 10, 1899, Theodore Roosevelt gave a speech based upon his personal experiences, to which he argued that strenuous effort and overcoming hardship were ideals to be embraced by Americans for the betterment of the individual, the nation and the world in the 20th century.1

We would never invite tragedy, nor do the effects of such a thing ever look desirable; however, most would agree those that have weathered extreme tragedy, tribulation, and turmoil often emerge as more admirable spiritual people. It is a strange conundrum. You wouldn’t want this for yourself, your children, or really anyone, yet we all likely would agree that in an eschatological or redemptive sense – we would all be better people should we have to endure such a thing. We see this in many ways such as Christianity traditionally thriving during times of persecution.2 Theologically, (unless you’re an extreme Calvinist) no one believes that God did this to you. That clearly isn’t the character of God. Perhaps or maybe he simply “allowed” it to happen within a fallen broken world. We don’t have His eyes to see these or fully understand such events from the eyes of a sovereign God. But He asks us to trust Him and in our covenant faithfulness, through enduring faith He will walk with us and bear our burdens. My friend Paul Dazet points out that God works relentlessly to heal. Always. Not by force, but by love. Not from a distance, but from within. Healing is slow, stubborn, often unseen—but it’s always in motion.3

Suffering has a way of revealing what we truly believe. When life hurts, faith is tested, and character is refined. James 5:10–11 invites believers to look to the examples of the prophets and Job to understand endurance in hardship. These verses remind us that suffering is not meaningless and that the God of compassion and mercy always perseveres for us.

Today nearly everyone I know is facing challenges that can draw parallels from Victor’s experience. In a world where pain and uncertainty are prevalent, Victor’s story encourages believers to hold onto their faith even when answers seem elusive. It emphasizes that questioning and seeking understanding are natural parts of the faith journey. Faithful believers can apply Victor’s example by finding strength in their beliefs, seeking support from their faith communities, and allowing their experiences to deepen their spiritual lives. Victor’s resilience serves as a reminder that enduring hardships can ultimately reinforce one’s faith and provide a sense of purpose and hope deeply within the healing arms of the Savior.

I pray that this work inspires you to persevere, to deepen your faith and trust, and find and flourish in the destiny that Jesus has for you.

May you trust that love is working, even when you can’t see it.
May you find courage to say yes to healing, one small moment at a time.
And may you know that your story, every broken, beautiful piece of it.
Is part of something larger than you can imagine.
Amen!

This piece is a foreword by Dr. Will Ryan to “Just Keep Breathing, A Journey of Triumph over Tragedy” By Dr. R. Victor Gray is slated to be released by TKC Publishing in early 2026.

  1. Thayer, William Roscoe (1919). “Chapter I”. Theodore Roosevelt: An Intimate Biography. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. p. 20. ↩︎
  2. Edward Kessler (18 February 2010). An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations. Cambridge University Press. pp. 45–. ISBN 978-1-139-48730-6. ↩︎
  3. A Wounded Healer’s Journal ↩︎
Comments Off on Just Keep Breathing! Posted in ADVENTURE

THE DIFFICULTY OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE BIBLE IN A MODERN ERA

Posted by expedition44 on

If you know anything about me, you know that I am going to tell you what the Bible says as transparently as possible, present the options and issues and let you come to your own conclusion. Nothing is spoon fed. So, I am not going to approach this very difficult issue slightly differently than I have in the past. I wrote a post of homosexuality years ago and I haven’t changed my perspective on that post, but I have come to also frame the same discussions a bit differently. You might want to read this post first.

What I think doesn’t really matter, it is what the Bible says. However, in any theology and interpretation we have to deduce things. When the Bible isn’t perfectly clear we use our God given minds guided by the Holy Spirit to arrive at truth. Sometimes we come to different results, and I would encourage you to honor and respect varied biblically based views.

Homosexuality is Biblically described as sin

The Bible introduces human sexuality within the context of God’s creative design. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). This foundational premise establishes the binary nature of human sexuality as woven into God’s original creation. In Genesis 2:24, the union of man and woman is depicted as a one-flesh covenant: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” The emphasis on male-female pairing is the template for marriage, consistently referenced throughout Scripture.1

In describing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 19:4-11 recounts men of the city demanding sexual relations with Lot’s guests, who were angels in human form. The account highlights immoral behavior at multiple levels, which includes homosexual acts. While this passage also addresses other grave sins (Ezekiel 16:49-50 mentions pride, neglect of the poor, and abominable acts), the sexual violation in Genesis 19 is one of the clearest aspects of Sodom’s guilt. Homosexuality is clearly treated as sin.2

Leviticus 18:22 states, “You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.” Likewise, Leviticus 20:13 addresses the same practice as forbidden. These prohibitions appear in a broader context that includes various other sexual sins (e.g., incest, bestiality, and adultery), demonstrating that Scripture draws boundaries around intimacy for Israel, reflecting God’s holiness and will for human sexuality.3

Although the Gospels do not record Jesus specifically saying the word “homosexuality,” in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus refers to the “male and female” design for marriage reaffirming the OT Genesis covenant by a since of REMEZ which then would carry other OT connotation. Jesus also underscores sexual purity (Matthew 5:27-28; Mark 7:20-23). He does not offer a direct commentary on same-sex relationships in the recorded Gospels, but many will argue that He established framework for marriage, sexual purity, and upholding Scriptural commands providing the overarching context. Matthew 5:17-18 underscores that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not dismantle it. Ethical instructions, including sexual conduct, gain deeper clarity in the New Covenant but remain consistent in reflecting God’s righteous nature. Within this framework, contexts like Leviticus remain relevant as a moral guidepost, interpreted in the light of Christ’s sacrificial redemption.4

Paul’s epistles also touch on the acts in Romans 1:26-27: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another…” This passage highlights a departure from God’s design, emphasizing that certain acts are not in line with His created order. Perhaps similar to how Jesus mentioned them. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral… nor homosexuals, nor thieves… will inherit the kingdom of God.” Here, Paul places homosexual behavior among a list of sins. Yet in the following verse, 1 Corinthians 6:11, he offers hope: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed…” The emphasis is on transformation and redemption offered by God. This is a challenging interpretation. Finally, 1 Timothy 1:9-11 also categorizes homosexual acts with other sins that contradict “sound teaching,” reinforcing the broader biblical ethic on sexuality. In each instance, Paul addresses same-sex activity as one among various actions deemed inconsistent with the holy living God calls believers to pursue. It seems to treat homosexuality as any other “SINFUL” act.5 Those involved in these acts are missing the mark.

Why this is complicated and considerations of homosexuality

Well, the above probably sounds rather convincing. And I think if you are truly unbiased, it should. I would argue there is a strong biblical directive that homosexuality both NT and OT treat the act of homosexuality as a sin. But let’s also consider the other ramifications of the arguments. It seems that much of our evangelical Christian world continues to live in a sinful state. You might reconsider…

Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger in the dirt. They kept at him, badgering him. He straightened up and said, “The sinless one among you, go first: Throw the stone.” Bending down again, he wrote some more in the dirt. Hearing that, they walked away, one after another, beginning with the oldest. The woman was left alone. Jesus stood up and spoke to her. “Woman, where are they? Does no one condemn you?” “No one, Master.” “Neither do I,” said Jesus. “Go on your way. From now on, don’t sin.”] Note: John 7:53–8:11 [the portion in brackets] is not found in the earliest handwritten copies. John 8:7-11

The OT is complicated. What do we take with us and what do we leave behind? Most Evangelical Christians I know no longer keep much if any of the law (starting with the most basic 10 commandments of honoring the sabbath – you probably don’t even know when that starts and ends let alone keep it!) What comes with us as Christians and what stays behind as antiquated law that can’t or no longer needs to be followed in the spirit of Romans 7:6? Perhaps the things Jesus restates come with, but then we have the issue that Jesus followed the law to a T (Levitical not Rabbinical law) and we are to follow His example.6

Let me give you a brief example of some of the other difficulties…

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Exodus 21:7 seems to say it is just to sell my daughter to slavery. Exodus 35:2 clearly states violators of the Sabbath may be put to death. Furthermore, homosexuality is often listed with other things that seem much more minor in the OT and could be viewed as premodern-world best practice for health. For instance, Lev. 11:10 says eating shellfish is an “abomination”, and using same words used to describe homosexuality in Lev. 18.7 The argument would then be that perhaps the law suggested things to an ancient world that would keep their nation pure and (sexually) disease free (circumcision, and various purification laws.) Once science caught up with a modern world are these no longer concerns? Do you want to get into a conversation of intention? You might have no issues eating shellfish today but speak up against homosexuality. Is that biased? Did Jesus truly state everything that was important to continue to keep in the law? Does your theology say if Jesus didn’t restate something then it doesn’t need to be followed? He was pretty vague on homosexuality. Some would say if His intention was to call it sin, He could have been much clearer on it. If he was a good teacher wouln’t he have been more clear if that was His intention? What about other simple issues like Lev. 11:6-8 says that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, did you ever consider a football is made of pigskin? Why do some Christians seem to so easily pick and choose what to condemn from the law and what to not even consider? Lev.19:19 indicates we shouldn’t plant two different crops in the same field, or wear garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). You could even argue Lev.24:10-16 makes a case to stone them or that Lev. 20:14 says to burn those caught in incestual relationships. Are you starting to see the complications that might come with being unbiased to the text, trying to decide what still should carry over to us? Why are women in the OT not upheld to the same sexual standards as men?8 What about miskebe issa?9 Do we want to get into that conversation?

Lastly, aren’t we called to strive to live 100% towards the finished eschatological goal? Some have said that there will be no genders in heaven, however I would argue the Bible seems to lean the other way. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates people will lose or change their gender in heaven. On the contrary, the Bible implies that we will remain who we are in heaven, and gender is likely part of who we are. In paradise, Lazarus was still Lazurus, and Abraham was still Abraham (Luke 16:22–24). But make no mistake, the first two chapters and the last two chapters are God’s ideals and at the very least there is gender equality. But that still doesn’t address all the questions or issues eschatologically. Jesus says, “At the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” – Matthew 22:30 The problem is Angels in Heaven had a distinctive Genesis 6 problem that had to do with all things sexual. What do you do with that? If you are going down this road, you might also consider the texts of Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭15‬, Genesis 6:2, Genesis 19:5-8, in comparison to Galations 3:26 and Mark 12:25.

CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS

Each person may have a different interpretation of the scripture and be in a slightly different situation. I think we should walk in balance and peace but encourage better Biblical interpretation. Has modernity and science changed over time compared to the law as a stop gap for the coming of the messiah and possibly modern medicine? (Some will argue God uses modern medicine, some see modern medicine as opposite of the healing God offers.) There are several things that should come into your theological lens in terms of agreement within your theology on this matter.

On the one hand, if you are reading this, you most likely believe the Bible is God’s Word and we can’t with integrity deny that it teaches that sex outside the parameters of a monogamous, life-long, marriage covenant is sin, whether it is sex with a person of a different gender or sex with a person of the same gender. We find the arguments of those who try to argue that Rom.1:24-28-, I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 don’t apply to monogamous gay relationships simply aren’t very persuasive. On the other hand, we sense that something is “off” with the stance of the church throughout history, and the stance of most evangelical churches today, toward gay people. Jesus would have unequivocally loved them and invited them to repent and join His kingdom. The approach isn’t consistent or balanced.

As an example, many of us wonder why it is that the church (rightly) embraces without question people who have been divorced and remarried – several times, in some cases –but adamantly excludes committed gay couples – couples who sometimes have a love for one another that puts the love of many straight couples to shame. What makes this question especially important is that the New Testament’s teaching that divorce and remarriage involves sin is much more emphatic and clear than it’s teaching that gay unions involve sin (see e.g. Mt. 5:32; 19:9). In fact, while Jesus taught on the sin of divorce and remarriage several times, he never even mentioned homosexuality. I have said it many times over the years, but once you step away from God’s ideal of 1 man and 1 woman united as one before the LORD in ANY WAY… you are outside of His perfect will for you. In every other situation grace covers you equally. However, we are also told to not continue to live in sin. You might argue that remarriage isn’t necessarily sin but living in homosexuality is. We also have to consider not giving into the tendencies, urge or temptations. What about the one who has the sexual urges towards homosexuality but never gratifies those urges? Isn’t that essentially the same as not giving into any sinful temptation? I think if you are truly approaching this issue with an un-biased approach toward faithful hermeneutical interpretation this subject is going to be far more complicated than you may have ever considered.

Let me get back to grace. My point is not that the church should exclude divorced and remarried people. While divorce and remarriage “misses the mark” of God’s ideal, which is the Bible’s definition of sin (harmartia), I believe that, by God’s grace, this is sometimes the best option for people. My point is rather that there seems to be an inconsistency on the part of the church on this matter, and many of us wonder why.10

Scripture consistently presents homosexual practice, like adultery and various other sexual acts outside of a man-woman marriage covenant, as contrary to God’s design. So, let’s be consistent!

At the same time, the Bible declares the potential for repentance, transformation, and redemption for all people regardless of background or personal history. For many interpreters, this forms the unified, scriptural teaching on homosexuality. In summary, the biblical record reflects a consistent stance on the question at hand-rooted in God’s initial design, repeated in the ethical instructions of both Old and New Testaments, and ultimately encompassed by the message of grace and hope found in Christ.

  1. https://biblehub.com/q/what_does_the_bible_say_on_homosexuality.htm ↩︎
  2. Joyce, Paul M. (2009). Ezekiel: A Commentary. Continuum. ISBN 9780567483614. ↩︎
  3. Eisenberg, Ronald (2005), The 613 Mitzvot: A Contemporary Guide to the Commandments of Judaism, Schreiber Publishing, ISBN 0-88400-303-5 ↩︎
  4. Massey, Lesly F. (2015). Daughters of God, Subordinates of Men: Women and the Roots of Patriarchy in the New Testament. McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-4766-2143-2. ↩︎
  5. Coogan, Michael (October 2010). God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. ↩︎
  6. Coogan 2010, p. 135: “Finally, the Hebrew Bible is silent about lesbian relationships, probably because they did not relate to patriarchy—or, for that matter, to paternity.” ↩︎
  7. Meirowitz, Sara N.S. (2009). “Not Like a Virgin: Talking about Nonmarital Sex”. In Ruttenberg, Danya (ed.). The Passionate Torah: Sex and Judaism. NYU Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-8147-7605-6. ↩︎
  8. Alpert, Rebecca T. (2009). “Reconsidering Solitary Sex from a Jewish Perspective”. In Ruttenberg, Danya (ed.). The Passionate Torah: Sex and Judaism. NYU Press. p. 185. ISBN 978-0-8147-7605-6. In the Hebrew Bible there is no same-gender sexuality for women and no allusion to female masturbation, whereas lying with a man as with a woman is prohibited at least twice in the Torah. ↩︎
  9.  “Since illicit carnal relations are implied by the term miškĕbê ʾiššâ, it may be plausibly suggested that homosexuality is herewith forbidden for only the equivalent degree of forbidden heterosexual relations, namely, those enumerated in the preceding verses (D. Stewart). However, sexual liaisons occurring with males outside these relations would not be forbidden. And since the same term miškĕbê ʾiššâ is used in the list containing sanctions (20:13), it would mean that sexual liaisons with males, falling outside the control of the paterfamilias, would be neither condemnable nor punishable. Thus miskĕbê ʾiššâ, referring to illicit male—female relations, is applied to illicit male—male relations, and the literal meaning of our verse is: do not have sex with a male with whose widow sex is forbidden. In effect, this means that the homosexual prohibition applies to Ego with father, son, and brother (subsumed in v. 6) and to grandfather—grandson, uncle—nephew, and stepfather—stepson, but not to any other male.” – Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible vol. 3, Yale University Press, 2007, page 1569 ↩︎
  10. https://reknew.org/2012/10/homosexuality-and-the-church-finding-a-third-way/ ↩︎

Here and Now by Jon Gibson

Posted by expedition44 on

Gibson is a gift.

“I feel like I just went surfing with the disciples, followed by a great campfire and breakfast on the beach.“

Here & Now: Finding God in the Beautiful Collision Between Head & Heart

By: Jon Gibson

I had the honor of writing the foreword for this book. I have written the forewords for over a dozen books in the last few years, but this one was different. I was given a pre-release copy to read and make “theological suggestions” and ended up falling in love with it. It is the only book I have ever approached the author and “asked” for consideration to write the foreword for. I truly believe this book will profoundly change your life.

I write a good amount of book reviews, and I decided that I am simply going to be a cheerleader from the sidelines on this review. Not because I don’t want to dive into every discussion, but because I truly want to not determine the course of impact this book will have on you. I believe it touches everyone slightly differently. So rather than tell you precisely what I think is best about it, or how it impacted me or should impact you – I just want to convince you that you need to read it and leave it up to the Holy Spirit to determine the impact it will have on your life.

This is a masterpiece. Digestible and easily applicable, no matter what your situation is, or what stage of life you are in. It is a reflective and deeply personal journey. Have you wondered if your course is slightly off? Are you really living the meaningful fulfilling life that God desires and intended for you? Jon has a way of getting to the root of the most personal topics and providing concrete, approachable ways to address them. He also has a gift for framing things in ways you would never think of but draws the reader into the sacred places and beautiful moments of their lives. The very introspective, passionate, & compassionate author will give you much to reflect on in your physical and spiritual relationships and life perspectives. This is a very easy and enlightening book to read and extremely practical on how to hear the voice of God for the situations you are facing now and to seek God’s face for his plans for your future. One of the strengths of the book is its clarity and simplicity in presenting profound spiritual truths. Jon emphasizes that everyone has a purpose in life, which is ultimately found in a personal relationship with God that dives into practical and inspirational stories painting great mosaics of what it means and looks like to find the love, grace, compassion and mercy of the father in everyday interactions. Have you experienced God moving with you in real time?


The church needs this book. Buy a copy for yourself and a friend.

CLICK HERE TO PURCHASE ON AMAZON

PSALMING

Posted by expedition44 on

This Friday night at TOV we are having Eden to Eden back! One of the things they are known for is their psalming. Psalming has a rich past in devotional and spiritual meditation to Yahweh. Hebrew psalming is a type of cantillation1, the Hebrew term te’amim describes the manner of reciting or singing verses from the Bible and specifically in this case, the Psalms.2 It is becoming more popular in organic praise and worship settings and is often connected with inviting the Holy Spirit to indwell the natural spontaneity of devotional and meditational song.

In Hebrew there are special signs or marks printed in the Masoretic Text of the Bible, to complement the letters and vowel points. These marks are known in English as ‘accents’ (diacritics), ‘notes’ or trope symbols3. The musical motifs associated with the signs are known in Hebrew as niggun or neginot.4

There are multiple traditions of cantillation. Within each tradition, there are multiple tropes, typically for different books of the Bible and often for different occasions. For example, different chants may be used for Torah readings on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur than for the same text on a normal Shabbat.

In Evangelical Christianity cantillation is known mostly when Bible verses are restated in modern praise and worship music and are simply referred to as praise and worship songs. However, when these songs literally reiterate scripture, they certainly should be considered  te’amim.

Phonetics

Most cantillation signs are written on the consonant of the stressed syllable of a word. This also shows where the most important note of the musical motif should go.5

A few signs always go on the first or last consonant of a word. This may have been for musical reasons, or it may be to distinguish them from other accents of similar shape. For example, pashta, which goes on the last consonant, otherwise looks like kadma, which goes on the stressed syllable.6

Music

Cantillation signs guide the reader in applying a chant to Biblical readings. This chant is technically regarded as a ritualized form of speech intonation rather than as a musical exercise like the singing of metrical hymns: for this reason, Jews always speak of saying or reading a passage rather than of singing it. However, most people observing for the first time would understand it to be no different to a scripturally based praise and worship song.

Psalms, Proverbs and Job

The system of cantillation signs used throughout the Tanakh is replaced by a very different system for these three poetic books. Many of the signs may appear the same or similar at first glance, but most of them serve entirely different functions in these three books. The short narratives at the beginning and end of Job use the “regular” system, but the bulk of the book (the poetry) uses the special system. For this reason, these three books are referred to as sifrei emet (Books of Truth), the word emet meaning “truth”, but also being an acronym (אמ״ת) for the first letters of the three books (Iyov, Mishle, Tehillim).7

In Christian missionary uses

The Jewish-born Christian convert Ezekiel Margoliouth translated the New Testament to Hebrew in 1865 with cantillation marks added. It is the only completely cantillated translation of the New Testament. The translation was published by the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews.8

Understanding the Psalms as Music

The Book of Psalms also known as the Psalter, is the first book of the third section of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) called Ketuvim (‘Writings’), and a book of the Old Testament.9

The book is an anthology of Hebrew religious hymns. In the Jewish and Western Christian traditions, there are 150 psalms, and several more in the Eastern Christian churches.10 The book is divided into five sections, each ending with a doxology, a hymn of praise. There are several types of psalms, including hymns or songs of praise, communal and individual laments, royal psalms, imprecation, and individual thanksgivings. The book also includes psalms of communal thanksgiving, wisdom, pilgrimage, and other categories.

Many of the psalms contain attributions to the name of King David and other Biblical figures, including Asaph, the sons of Korah, Moses, and Solomon. Davidic authorship of the Psalms is not accepted as a historical fact by modern scholars, who view it as a way to link biblical writings to well-known figures; while the dating of the Psalms is “notoriously difficult”, some are considered preexilic and others postexilic.11 The English-language title of the book derives from the Greek word psalmoi (ψαλμοί), meaning ‘instrumental music’, and by extension referring to “the words accompanying the music”.12 

In Christian prayer and worship

New Testament references show that the earliest Christians used the Psalms in worship, Paul the Apostle quotes Psalms (specifically Psalms 14 and 53, which are nearly identical). Several conservative Protestant denominations sing only the Psalms (some churches also sing the small number of hymns found elsewhere in the Bible) in worship.

Psalming in modern praise and worship

There are some challenges to modern day Western Church psalming. Psalms don’t rhyme, they use forms such as acrostics that are foreign to pop music, and they certainly don’t fit neatly into the verse/chorus/bridge patterns used in pop. This may mean that the composer of modern psalm songs needs to stretch both biblical text and musical idiom so they can meet. In this way, they may not be word for word, that really wasn’t the intention of the text to the original audience any way. As some more traditional or Rabbinic forms may take offense to modern evangelical psalming, there isn’t necessarily a right or wrong cantillation; in fact, quite the opposite – most modern musicians would say, let the Holy Spirit move and abound. In this way gifts of tongues may often be part of the utterance.

Written by Dr. WIll Ryan and Dr. Matt Mouzakis

  1. Segal, J. B., The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac: Oxford 1953, repr. 2003 ISBN 1-59333-032-4, ISBN 978-1-59333-032-3. ↩︎
  2. Jeffrey Burns, The Music of Psalms, Proverbs and Job in the Hebrew Bible (Jüdische Musik 9), Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2011, ISBN 344706191X. ↩︎
  3. Jacobson, Joshua (2017). “CHAPTER ONE CANTILLATION.” Chanting the Hebrew Bible (Second, Expanded ed.). Web: The Jewish Publication Society. p. 2. ↩︎
  4. The article on “Cantillation” in the Jewish Encyclopedia shows tunes for “Prophets (other readings)” for both the Western Sephardi and the Baghdadi traditions. ↩︎
  5. Lier, Gudrun, “The Revia in the Context of Decoding Masoretic Accents”, Journal of Semitics, 2011, Vol 21/1, pp. 28-51. ↩︎
  6. For a full study see Israel Yeivin, Cantillation of the Oral Law. Leshonenu 24 (1960), pp. 47-231 (Hebrew). ↩︎
  7. Newman, Zelda Kahan (2000). “The Jewish Sound of Speech: Talmudic Chant, Yiddish Intonation and the Origins of Early Ashkenaz”. The Jewish Quarterly Review. 90 (3/4): 293–336. doi:10.2307/1454758. ISSN 0021-6682. JSTOR 1454758. ↩︎
  8. Scanned versions of this translation can be found here [1], here [2] and here “Vine of David | Remnant Repository : Ezekiel Margoliouth”.  ↩︎
  9. Mazor, Lea (2011). “Book of Psalms”. In Berlin, Adele; Grossman, Maxine (eds.). The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-973004-9. ↩︎
  10. Kselman, John S. (2007). “Psalms”. In Coogan, Michael David; Brettler, Marc Zvi; Newsom, Carol Ann (eds.). The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-528880-3. ↩︎
  11. Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (2004). “Psalms”. In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi; Fishbane, Michael A. (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-529751-5. ↩︎
  12. Murphy, Roland E. (1993). “Psalms”. In Coogan, Michael D.; Metzger, Bruce (eds.). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974391-9. ↩︎

Is Israel Still God’s Chosen people?

Posted by expedition44 on

Q:  I have a question regarding Israel. Would Israelites still be considered God’s chosen people or would that have changed with Jesus’s atoning works? 

Yes, Israel was (and is) called God’s chosen people in Scripture—but what that means and how we understand it after Jesus is really important to clarify.

When God called Israel His “chosen people” in the Old Testament, it wasn’t primarily a statement about salvation. Rather, Israel was chosen (commissioned) for a vocation—to be a light to the nations (see Exodus 19:5–6; Deuteronomy 7:6; Isaiah 49:6). (You might see this as a regaining of the nations if you follow a Deuteronomy 32 worldview.) God gave them the Law (Torah), the covenants, and the promises, not as an end in themselves, but so that through them, the nations of the world would come to know and worship Yahweh. Paul puts it like this in Romans 3:2—that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. In a sense, this was the calling of Adam and Eve and when they fall short, God commissions Israel in the same calling, nation that would be called commissioned as a holy royal priesthood to represent Yahweh to the rest of the fallen world.

But Israel consistently struggled to live out this calling. From nearly the beginning of the story the nation failed to honor Yahweh (golden calf incident) and instead of the entire nation (all 12 tribes) representing the Lord as priests, God adapted the plan and then called just the Levites to be His representatives as priests first to Israel in hopes of then commissioning the entire nation of Israel to the original plan and act as ambassadors of Yahweh. The Old Testament tells a story of covenant, failure, judgment, and hope for restoration. Israel continued to falter. They gave up their theocracy of one God – Yahweh to choose to be led by an earthly king. They drifted farther and farther from the plan until God finally hands them over to their own demise, the exile was a key turning point. Even after the return of the exile to Jerusalem, most scholars believe Israel never returned to the LORD. God longed for Israel to return to the true redemption and the coming of God’s kingdom. Unfortunately, Israel continued to fall short and not seem to live out their calling or commissioning.

Jesus enters the narrative with a similar mission. He doesn’t reject Israel’s story—He steps into it. He comes first to “the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24), calling them back to their original vocation. He chooses twelve disciples, clearly symbolizing a reconstitution of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is not incidental—it’s Jesus claiming to be the one who restores and redefines Israel around Himself.

And here’s the key: Jesus is the faithful Israelite. He does what Israel failed to do. He keeps the covenant perfectly, walks in radical obedience, and fulfills Israel’s mission. He is the true Israel (see Matthew 2:15 where Hosea’s words originally spoken about Israel—”out of Egypt I called my son”—are applied to Jesus).

This is why Paul will later say in Galatians 3:16 that the promises were given not to “seeds” (plural) but to one “seed,” who is Christ. In other words, the inheritance of Israel is fulfilled in Jesus—and only those who are “in Him” share in that inheritance. That phrase—”in Christ”—is the dominant identity marker for believers in the New Testament. If Jesus is the true Israel, then those united to Him (Jew or Gentile) are the true people of God.

This point becomes even clearer when we revisit God’s original promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” This statement is often lifted out of its covenantal context and applied to modern nations or political support for Israel. However, the Hebrew grammar and narrative context show that the promise was made to Abram himself (the singular “you” in Hebrew, ʾotkha), not to a future geopolitical nation. God’s intention was not to privilege one ethnic group above all others but to initiate a redemptive mission through one man and his descendants—a mission that would culminate in Christ. The blessing is vocational, not nationalistic. Abram is chosen in order to be a blessing, that through him “all the families of the earth will be blessed.”

The apostle Paul interprets this precisely in Galatians 3:16, identifying the “seed” (zeraʿ) of Abraham as Christ Himself. This means that the covenant promise—“I will bless those who bless you”—finds its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus. The “you” now applies to Abraham’s true heir, the Messiah. Those who bless Him—who honor, trust, and align themselves with Jesus—receive the blessing of God; those who reject Him cut themselves off from that blessing. In this way, the Abrahamic covenant points forward to Christ as the locus of divine favor. To bless Abraham’s seed is to embrace the redemptive mission of God revealed in Jesus, and through faith in Him, we become participants in that same blessing.

Paul says Abraham was justified before circumcision (Rom. 4), showing that faith, not ethnicity, is the marker of God’s covenant people. He adds in Romans 2:28–29 that a true Jew is one inwardly, whose heart is circumcised by the Spirit. And in Galatians 3:28 he writes: “There is neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Ephesians 2 expands this beautifully. Paul says that Jesus has broken down the dividing wall and made one new humanity—no longer Jew and Gentile, but one body. Peter echoes this in 1 Peter 2, where he applies all the covenant titles once reserved for Israel (royal priesthood, holy nation, people of God) to the church made up of both Jews and Gentiles.

Paul also uses the metaphor of an olive tree in Romans 11: some natural branches (ethnic Israelites) were broken off because of unbelief, and wild branches (Gentiles) were grafted in. But it’s one tree. There aren’t two peoples of God. There is one new covenant community—those who are in Christ. It’s not about replacing Israel, but about fulfillment—where Jews and Gentiles together form the one people of God in Christ.

This helps clarify what Paul means in Romans 11:26 when he says, “all Israel will be saved.” We don’t believe he’s referring to a future mass conversion of ethnic Jews or suggesting two separate salvation paths. Rather, he’s speaking of the fullness of God’s people: both believing Jews and Gentiles who are part of the one tree through faith in the Messiah. This fits with Paul’s logic throughout Romans and with his statement in Galatians 6:16 that the church is “the Israel of God.”

God has always worked through covenants—and those covenants are centered on trust and faithfulness, not ethnicity alone. From the beginning, covenant relationship with God required loyal love. Even under the Mosaic covenant, Israel’s inclusion was contingent on obedience and faithfulness to Yahweh (Deut 28). Being born into Israel didn’t guarantee blessing—relationship and trust did. (Israelites were never automatically “saved.”) If there was any sense of salvation in the Old Testament it would be under the same “qualifications” as in the New Testament. What God was asking and promising for the faithful doesn’t change from the Old Covenants to the New Covenant.

The New Testament affirms this. While many modern Jews are physical descendants of Abraham, Paul is clear that physical descent is not enough. In Romans 9:6–8, he writes:

“For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants… it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.”

Paul emphasizes that covenant identity is now grounded in faith—just as it was with Abraham. As he puts it in Galatians 3:7:

“Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.”

So when we speak of the “people of God” today, we are not referring to a physical nation-state or ethnic group. We are speaking of those “in Christ”—those joined to the faithful Israelite, Jesus.

The modern nation-state of Israel is not the covenant people of the Bible. -If this is a new consideration for you, you might consider reading this article. Most of its citizens do not follow the Mosaic covenant, and the majority have rejected Jesus as Messiah. According to the New Testament, that places them outside of the renewed covenant family—not because of their ancestry, but because God’s covenant has always been about faith.

This doesn’t mean God has abandoned ethnic Jews. Paul says in Romans 11 that he hopes some of his fellow Jews will be provoked to faith. And many Messianic Jews (Jewish believers in Jesus) are part of the body of Christ. But the boundary marker is no longer ethnicity or Torah observance—it is faith in Jesus.

All of this leads us to say: the true Israel (or Israelite) is Jesus. And those “in Him,” whether Jew or Gentile, are heirs to the promises, the calling, and the covenant. God is not partial (and never has been, even with Israel as many gentiles were welcome to join them, a mixed multitude – Hebrew and gentile – left Egypt in the Exodus becoming “Israel”, and some even found themselves in the lineage of Christ Himself) —He welcomes all who come to Him through Christ.

We also need to think about our family in Christ as those that are allegiant to the New Covenant calling rather than those that are nationalistically / inter-nationalistically aligned with groups that subtly “claim to be allied with God” but are not living out the Way of Jesus or bearing fruit for the Kingdom of Christ. There is only one kingdom of Christ, and you can’t serve two masters. For generations many have claimed to be part of Israel or want to be somehow grafted into salvation but haven’t followed the devotion that God has desired and look nothing like Jesus or act in a way worthy of bearing His image. Jesus seemed to paint this picture vividly and make this very clear in the sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

This is not replacement theology.1 God has not rejected Israel and replaced her with or even outside of the church. Rather, the church is the fulfillment of Israel’s story (and Adam and Eve’s story for that matter) —expanded to include all nations through union with Jesus, the faithful Israelite, this was the plan of redemption that “all nations”, or everyone was offerred from the beginning. The promises of God have not been scrapped or reassigned; they find their “yes and amen” in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). The covenant people of God have always been marked by faith and loyalty to Him—and in the new covenant, that means allegiance and devotion to Yahweh through Jesus accepting and claiming that victory and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit as a sign of the holy royal priesthood. Jew and Gentile together form the one new man, the reconstituted people of God.

written by Will Ryan Th.D. and Matt Mouzakis Th.D.

  1. Replacement theology, doctrine holding that Christians have replaced the Jewish people as the chosen people of God or as the heirs of the divine-human covenant described in the Hebrew Bible. The theology is also referred to as supersessionism, in which Christianity is thought to have superseded Judaism. It is closely related to fulfillment theology, which holds that Christianity has fulfilled the divine promises signaled in the Hebrew Bible. These ideas appear to be suggested in some of the earliest Christian texts, such as writings of St. Paul the Apostle, and subsequent Christian theologians have strengthened the opposition of Judaism and Christianity in ways that have informed relations between Christians and Jews. In the 20th century many Christian theologians and even church doctrines replaced replacement theology with more-nuanced or inclusive models that support more-amicable interreligious relations.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Replacement-theology ↩︎

STAR OF DAVID/REMPHAN

Posted by expedition44 on

The Magen David or Star of David  (מָגֵן דָּוִד, lit. ’Shield of David‘) is a symbol generally recognized as representing both Jewish identity and Judaism.1 It may surprise you to learn that it has no Biblical roots. The earliest the hexagram can be found in a religious context is in the Leningrad Codex, a manuscript of the Hebrew Bible from 11th-century Cairo.2 It became representative of Zionism after it was chosen as the central symbol for a Jewish national flag at the First Zionist Congress in 1897.3 By the end of World War I, it was an internationally accepted symbol for the Jewish people, used on the gravestones of fallen Jewish soldiers. 4 Today, the star is the central symbol on the national flag of the State of Israel.

Unlike the menorah, the Lion of Judah, the shofar and the lulav, the hexagram was not originally a uniquely Jewish symbol.5 There are some early signs of the symbol,  in Israel, there is a stone bearing a hexagram from the arch of the 3rd–4th century Khirbet Shura synagogue in Galilee.6 It also appears on a temple on Bar Kokhba Revolt coinage which dates from 135 CE.7 You can also find a hexagram on the ancient synagogue at Capernaum.8

A hexagram has been noted on a Jewish tombstone in Italy and another arguably in Egypt 9 (that I viewed in person earlier this year), which both may date as early as the third century.10 The Jews of Apulia were noted for their scholarship in Kabbalah, which doesn’t sit well in most traditional and Messianic Jewish circles.11

Medieval Kabbalistic grimoires show hexagrams among the tables of segulot, but without identifying them as “Shield of David”.12

REMPHAN

In the New Testament, Stephen condemns Jewish idolatry in Acts 7:3: “Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.” Stephen is quoting word-for-word from Septuagint version of Amos 5:26-27.

According to some Biblical scholars, the name refers to the Hebrew Kiyyun or Chiun (Hebrew: כִּיּוּן), However, the words “Kiyyun” (“Chiun”) and “Remphan” are each hapax legomena,13 and the text is unclear as to whether they are common or proper nouns and could be a reference to the planet Saturn (which was also connected to Remphan.) The Masoretic Text reads Kiyyun (Chiun), while the Septuagint renders that name as Rephan. Acts 7:42 quotes the Greek form, showing how the prophetic word moved into the early church. Comparative linguistics links Kiyyun to the Assyrian Kayvân, a name for planet saturn. Ancient peoples called planets “wandering stars” and often built cults around a star god. In more modern history you will recognize these terms from Zoroastrianism.14 

To be clear the Bible just mentions a star, not 5 or 6 points or anything else. The context is about rebellion to the Lord, but a large part of this discussion would have involved symbols of idolatry which is Exodus 20:3-4 language. Furthermore, as I alluded to earlier, there are some Hebrew issues in the text that you may need to be work through. The Hebrew Kiyyun to the Assyrian Kayvân / Chuin or Kewan, was rendered in the Septuagint, as Ῥαιφάν [Raiphan]. Some try to argue that there was no ancient god named Remphan, but I don’t see merit in that argument.

Others may say that the reference is the Star of Ninurta, which has eight points, not six points.15 But the truth of the matter is there are plenty of stars to be found in ancient culture and they didn’t seem to differentiate between 5,6,7 or 8 points; they all held the similar celestial imagery. For instance, I will remind you that in John’s vision of Revelation, Jesus has seven stars in his right hand. Jesus reveals the mystery: “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches” (Rev 1:20). Thus, there are seven stars or seven angels (messengers) to God’s redeemed people. In this sense it is important to point out that star imagery itself should not necessarily be condemned, it can be viewed in scripture in both positive and negative light. Jesus is called the Morning Star in Revelation 22:26 but Satan is also referenced with a similar term in Isaiah 14:12.

Moloch, Chiun and Remphan are all associated with the star god, Saturn, whose symbol is most commonly viewed as a six pointed star formed by two triangles, but sometimes as an 8 sided star. Saturn was the supreme god of the Chaldeans. Mo, Chiun, Rephan, or Remphan, and Remphis, all are likely the same with the Serapis of the Egyptians, and the calf of the Israelites; and which idolatry was introduced on account of Joseph, who interpreted the dream of Pharaoh’s kine, and provided for the Egyptians in the years of plenty against the years of famine, and was worshipped under the ox with a bushel on his head.

There is also may be a D32 nephalim connection. Giants, with the Hebrews, were called “Rephaim”; and so Mo, who is here meant, is called “Rephan”, and with an epenthesis “Remphan”, because of his gigantic form; which some have concluded from the massy crown on his head, which, with the precious stones, weighed a talent of gold, which David took from thence, 2 Samuel 12:30 for not the then reigning king of the Ammonites, but Molech, or Milchom, their idol, is meant: this is generally thought to be the same with Chiun in Amos; but it does not stand in a place to answer to that; besides, that should not be left untranslated, it not being a proper name of an idol, but signifies a type or form; and the whole may be rendered thus, “but ye have borne the tabernacle of your king, and the type, or form of your images, the star of your god”; which version agrees with Stephens’s, who, from the Septuagint, adds the name of this their king, and their god Rephan, or Remphan.16 Early Hebrew writing easily could have interpreted Rephaim as Rephan. We see these slight textual subtleties all over early ancient transcripts.17 Rephan, very well could point directly to a connection with fallen spiritual beings revered in the ancient world as gods in a Genesis 6 context.

THE SEAL OF SOLOMON

The Seal of Solomon or Ring of Solomon (חותם שלמה, Ḥotam Shlomo) is the legendary signet ring attributed to king Solomon in medieval mystical traditions, from which it developed in parallel within Jewish mysticism, Islamic mysticism and Western occultism. This story comes from the ancient non-canonical writing sometimes referred to as the “Testament of Solomon.” It is often depicted in the shape of either a hexagram or a pentagram. In mystic Jewish lore, the ring is variously described as having given Solomon the power to command the supernatural, including shedim and jinn, and also the ability to speak with animals. Most scholars would say that this is the predecessor to the Star of David.18

While several Biblical passages emphasize Solomon’s supernatural endowment of wisdom, they do not mention him receiving a ring to control demons. Instead, Scripture highlights Solomon’s extensive knowledge of natural phenomena (1 Kings 4:33) and the building of the Temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 6). No biblical text describes him subjugating evil spirits via an object or talisman. The extra-biblical work called the “Testament of Solomon” is thought to have been compiled between the 1st and 5th centuries AD (well after the Old Testament period). This document is categorized by scholars as pseudepigraphical, meaning it circulates under Solomon’s name but is not recognized as authentic Scripture. In this story, Solomon purportedly receives a ring from an angel, which bears the name or seal of God and grants him authority over demons, enabling him to command them to assist in building the Temple.19

A legend of a magic ring with which the possessor could command demons was already current in the 1st century Josephus as well as the Tractate Gittin (fol. 68) of the Talmud which also has a story involving Solomon, Asmodeus, and a ring with the divine name engraved: Solomon gives the ring and a chain to one Benaiahu son of Jehoiada to catch the demon Ashmedai, to obtain the demon’s help to build the temple; Ashmedai later tricks Solomon into giving him the ring and swallows it.20

There is also a subtle connection by symbolism to the Magi. The Magi are popularly referred to as wise men and kings. The word magi is used in the original Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew. Magi will later be seen in the etymology of the English term magic. Daniel 2:48 will connect with the same words when describing “Elymas the sorcerer” in Acts 13:6–11. Biblically all of these things fall under divination. The image to the right became part of the Alphabet of the Magi much later in history.

Scripture consistently condemns divination. Deuteronomy 18:10-11 states, “Let no one be found among you…who practices divination, conjury, interprets omens, or sorcery.” This prohibition underscores that seeking information from sources other than God is forbidden. The Israelites were called to be distinct from other nations, which frequently turned to occult rituals for guidance.

Leviticus 19:26 also prohibits divination, reinforcing that God’s people must avoid methods used by pagan cultures. King Manasseh’s downfall exemplifies the tragic consequences of defying these commands: “He sacrificed his sons in the fire in the Valley of Hinnom, practiced sorcery, divination, and witchcraft…” (2 Chronicles 33:6). Through such narratives, the Bible highlights the spiritual dangers and moral corruption that accompany attempts to manipulate or predict the future by occult means.

STARBUCKS ANOLOGY

Some may not like this analogy, but of late, it was a popular “western world” analogy to this conversation so I will mention it. You might consider the question, “Is the star of David rooted in idolatry and divination which was/is rival to Yahweh?” There is certainly an argument for that view. But many symbols both in and out of the Bible can go both ways. Foundationally, evil has always sought to take what is good and turn it to be a symbol of Evil. The Bible doesn’t really give us the whole story here, as that isn’t it’s primary intention. At least with the “taking back of the Rainbow”, there is a clear mention in the Bible. The roots of the rainbow representing something good and of God is not arguable. But with the 6-sided star we don’t necessarily have that. To most people if something has occult type of roots or even some strain of a negative connotation, we aren’t going to use the same symbol for our entity of good intention. When people and organizations do things like this it raises red flags, but it doesn’t make it wrong per se.

A good example is the Starbucks logo. The way it is used most recently seems simple. But when you dig into the history you scratch your head wondering why would a corporate coffee company “go there.” You have probably heard this, but most Christians would call the Starbucks logo downright “DEMONIC.” The image in the center of the Starbucks logo is not a mermaid. She’s actually a mythological Siren, a female creature that lured mariners to destruction by her sex appeal. Since coffee beans typically traveled overseas on large container ships, the founders decided to use a “seductive siren” logo that would lure coffee lovers to its stores. The original Starbucks logo was X rated, a bare-breasted, female Siren with two serpentine tails spread apart (a legs spread open sense.)

In an article published by Revealing Truth, it was claimed that the Starbucks logo also has sinister roots. By turning the original Starbucks logo upside down, you can see the image of satan. In 2014, Starbucks got into trouble after its employees were drawing satanic pentagrams and the number “666” in the foam of coffee.  

However, it is quite possible you visit Starbucks every day and look at the logo and can’t see anything evil in it anymore, and care very little about its dark history. As a Christian should you not support the organization because of its roots? I am not sure we should hold the organizations themselves and the people that represent them accountable for choices they specifically didn’t make. Isn’t that a Biblical theme? God isn’t judging you for the actions of others, just you. (I realize there are views within reformed theology that might see this differently.) There is an argument along these same lines with MONSTER energy Drink. I won’t get into that here. If you drink Monster or Starbucks, you shouldn’t have an issue with the Star of David, if you don’t – well than you might have an issue with the Star of David; but they are all slightly different to this analogy.

SEEING THE GOOD

I do believe there is a perspective of seeing the good in things despite their dark past. Isn’t that the restorative nature of scripture? You can choose to let ancient bygones be bygones and see the beauty and peace that the star of David a new meaning and we can see it for what it has come to represent. Shouldn’t we all be hopeful that a dark symbol could find There may even be an element of interpretation not specifically declared in the Bible but theologically deduced. The Star of David and the pomegranate are deeply intertwined in Jewish tradition. The pomegranate is one of the seven species mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:8, symbolizing God’s blessings and the good deeds of the people. It is also associated with the Temple and High Priestly garments and is used during the Feasts of Shavuot and Sukkot.21 The pomegranate’s six petals form the Star of David, and its significance extends to kingship and the Messiah Those who see the Star of David as Biblical, see the pomegranate’s deep red color and the presence of seeds that symbolize blood pointing to Jesus. Together, these symbols can be seen as representative to the holiness of God, the good deeds of the people, and point towards Jesus.

CONCLUSION

Going back to the Star of David. Knowing the History of how a 6-sided star has been used in Ancient Near Eastern history as connected to gods against Yahweh and divination, it seems “off” that Israel and Zionism would then adopt it as their logo claiming to be a God-fearing Nation. Yet there are also some beautiful connections to the pomegranate and seeing the hope that the symbol has come to represent many years before they adopted it.

WORKS CITED:

  1. Jacob Newman; Gabriel Sivan; Avner Tomaschoff (1980). Judaism A–Z. World Zionist Organization. p. 116. ↩︎
  2.  Kittel, Rud; Alt, A; Eissfeldt, Otto; Kahle, Paul; Weil, Gerard E; Schenker, Adrian (1977). Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. ISBN 9783438052186.
     (in Foreword by Gérard E. Weil). ↩︎
  3. “The Flag and the Emblem” (MFA). “The Star of David became the emblem of Zionist Jews everywhere. Non-Jews regarded it as representing not only the Zionist current in Judaism, but Jewry as a whole.” ↩︎
  4. Reuveni (2017). p. 43. ↩︎
  5. “The Flag and the Emblem” (MFA). “Unlike the menora (candelabrum), the Lion of Judah, the shofar (ram’s horn) and the lulav (palm frond), the Star of David was never a uniquely Jewish symbol.” ↩︎
  6. Star of David – Wikipedia ↩︎
  7. Plaut, W. Gunther (1991). The Magen David: How the six-pointed Star became an emblem for the Jewish People. Washington, D.C.: B’nai B’rith Books. pp. 26, 61–62. ISBN 0-910250-17-0. ↩︎
  8. “King Solomon-s Seal”, with credits Archived October 16, 2013, at the Wayback Machine Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs ↩︎
  9. The Egyptian officials accused the delegation of German archaeologists that has been working on the site’s reconstruction of engraving the Stars of David into the Shrine’s stone.  The engravings are found on a 3rd century B.C, temple located in Elephantine Island in Aswan. ↩︎
  10. Herbert M. Adler, JQR, vol. 14:111. Cited in “Magen David”, Jewish Encyclopedia, retrieved May 28, 2010. ↩︎
  11. www.markfoster.net Archived July 22, 2011, at the Wayback Machine ↩︎
  12. Rabbi Blumenkrantz, “The Seder”, The Laws of Pesach: A Digest 2010: Chap. 9. See also: Archived March 17, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, retrieved May 28, 2010. ↩︎
  13. Horne, Thomas Hartwell. An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. Vol. 2. pp. 410ff. ↩︎
  14. “An Etymological Dictionary of Astronomy and Astrophysics – 1”. dictionary.obspm.fr. Retrieved 2023-05-21. ↩︎
  15. Amar Annus, The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia, State Archives of Assyria Studies, Volume XIV Helsinki 2002. Pg. 104 ↩︎
  16. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible ↩︎
  17. “Scholars seek Hebrew Bible’s original text – but was there one?”. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. ↩︎
  18. Protectorat de la République Française au Maroc – Bulletin Officiel – (see page 838), 29th of November 1915, archived in July 2021 ↩︎
  19. https://biblehub.com/q/how_does_solomon_use_his_magic_ring.htm ↩︎
  20. Josephus. Antiquitates Judaicae. ↩︎
  21. https://theancientbridge.com/2016/06/pomegranates-the-star-of-david-and-shavuot-aka-pentecost/ ↩︎