I remember one time when I was young, my father took me to hear a great lecturer on the Shroud of Turin. The gentlemen that was giving the lecture had a Ph.D. in something and came off as very intelligent. It was one of the first times in my young life I ever heard someone speak with this kind of wisdom or understanding. I remember thinking, “maybe someday.” Well perhaps I have arrived, perhaps not. Some people know that the Biblical names we say in English aren’t really accurate. They aren’t the way they would have been pronounced in Hebrew or Greek they are the English versions of the words. For instance, in this lecture the scholar kept saying, “Yeshayahu.” I asked my dad what that meant and He whispered, “Hebrew for Isaiah.” Little did I know this would end up turning into a significant part of my life path.
Biblical Hebrew (or classical Hebrew) was an ancient language that some say emerged in the 10th century B.C (or 1,000 B.C.) and perhaps earlier. Some believe it was the primary language given by God. During the Roman Period Biblical Hebrew “evolved” beyond recognition. The Jewish Diaspora (or spreading of the Jews) changed the pronunciations to be unrecognizable in many ways. Languages got mixed & new dialects were made. Eventually Biblical Hebrew got so minced that it was unrecognizable and basically “died.” But it’s even more complicated, Jeff Benner addresses the issue like this,
“The Hebrew texts of the Bible were originally written with only the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which only represent consonantal sounds. As no vowel sounds were originally included in the text, they had to be memorized. As you can imagine with the Diaspora and passing on of the language orally in through different dialect and slang things became very difficult to know exactly what words were what. Around the 10th Century AD, a group of Jewish scribes called Masorites, created a system of dots and dashes, called nikkudot or vowel pointings and added these to the hebrew text. These vowel pointings served to supply the vowel sounds to the text in order to codify the pronunciation. The Masorites also included notes in the margins of the text. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew manuscript known to exist is the Masoretic text called the Aleppo Codex which was written in 826 A.D. This text is considered the most authoritative Hebrew manuscript and all future editions are based on this text.”
But the problem therein lies that by 826 A.D. most scholars would believe we had already lost the core of what Biblical Hebrew once was. Are you starting to see the issues?
Hebrew experienced a revival in the 19th century – and there was a push to bring back the Hebrew language, what we know was “Modern Hebrew” came as a result.
This was part of the Zionist Movement, or National Revival Movement to create a state/home for Jews and was an instrumental part of dispensationalism. During this movement, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, a lexicographer (dictionary writer/editor), prepared the first modern Hebrew dictionary. With the new dictionary, people started using Hebrew again and speaking 1 language. Because of the influence of European languages (remember, the Jewish Diaspora and evolving mentioned above?), Hebrew changed as a language. By the medieval period, we know of three main oral reading traditions: Babylonian, Palestinian, and Tiberian. Numerous medieval biblical manuscripts have survived representing these oral reading traditions with different vocalization sign systems.
(SOURCE: A comprehensive description of Babylonian vocalization is presented by Yisrael Yeivin The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization -Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985).
Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are different. For instance, the basic word for “I” changed, and words from outside languages came into modern Hebrew, essentially, a Biblical Hebrew “speaker” wouldn’t understand a Modern one and vice versa. In this way a someone that knows modern Hebrew often cannot really easily read the Hebrew Bible. They are “that” different. Because of these things and several others, there is a good bit of “acceptable” linguistic variation. Biblical Hebrew has been hard to track for many reasons.
Mark Ward sheds some light into this, “In New Testament times, the disciples were noted as Galileans, probably indeed because of their accents. What was the “right” way back then to pronounce Kiriath Jearim? And was it FIL-uh-steen or fuh-LISS-teen—or something else entirely? Who can know? I’m not saying we can’t know anything about ancient pronunciation of Hebrew and Greek words; I’m saying it cannot serve as the standard for how you pronounce names in the Bible today. Take that impossible pressure off of you.”
We simply “do not know” and because of this, some scholars have gone to great lengths to try to show why one pronunciation or another may be better, but we are so far removed and there are so many complications to this argument that instead of the scholarly community getting particular about all the various possible pronunciations, for the most part, there is a loose grace that comes with the ground. In Hebrew thought, there is never really an absolute “correct” way of seeing something anyway. The ONLY correct “view” is God’s view, and no one has those exact eyes.
So now, you will better understand how TOV specifically gets interesting.
Most people reading this know that Tov is the Biblical Hebrew word that describes God’s handiwork as “good” [tov]. The Hebrew word tov would best be translated as the word “functional” in terms of God’s order (algorithm may be a better modern word to describe what God does here in regard to devotion) in contrast to this word is the Hebrew word “ra”. These two words, tov and ra are used for the tree of the knowledge of “good” and “evil”. While “ra” is often translated as evil it is best translated as “dysfunctional” or “chaotic”. In the Bible we see narratives such as good-evil, tov-ra, order-disorder, function-disfunction, peace-chaos and so on and so forth, and they all describe the contrast of everything that becomes rival to the ways of the Lord.
Tov becomes a one word Idiom to describe all things as intended by God with the idea of a journey to being what you were fully designed to be from the eyes of God both in a sense of your person and the community that represents God.
In Ancient or Paleo Hebrew each character makes a picture that has a loose description of its intention. The above from “strongs” will help you understand this ancient Hebraic idea.
You might notice if you look up the word “good” that different sources or commentators handle meanings and even the pronunciation of the word slightly differently. This just goes back to the idea above that we really do not know what the original word exactly sounded like and many different scholars have suggested differences of opinion and research.
Transliteration takes the letters from one language (in this case, Hebrew) and puts them into another while trying to preserve pronunciation as best as possible. This presents challenges when languages like Hebrew have different sounds than English and have changed immensely over time. For example, one of the sounds in Hebrew that’s hard to carry over in English is the kh sound. It appears in words like chesed (steadfast love, lovingkindness) and sounds like phlegm coming out the back of the throat.
You may see the word TOV written by some commentators as “tobe” where as others may suggest “towb” or somethings different. Sometimes this is a variation in vocabulary and tense but most often it isn’t. In Hebrew the V, W, and B English sounds are very close.
____________________
HOW TO PRONOUNCE TOV: So specifically, when we pronounce TOV, scholars can agree on a few things; in Hebrew you emphasize a strong syllable, and in this word, it is at the beginning. T and O are strong and for the most part are pronounced like “TOE” in English. (However, this is complicated because in modern Hebrew this O often can take on an “A” sound. You might be familiar with this when people say, Mozel TAV with a long A sound rather than Mozel TOV with a short O sound.) Then when you get to the end of the word TOV (particularly in Biblical Hebrew), the emphasis almost fades to nothing. You end with a nearly slurred WVB sound in English. Therefore, TOwvb may be the closest thing (transliteration) you would understand in English (but don’t give to much emphasis to any of the “w” “v” or “b” sound, they should softly fade together.) It comes off as a strong “Toe” with a fading wvb sound. All that said, TAV, TOWB, TOBE, TOVE, TOV and likely other ways of saying it, are all “acceptable” especially when spoken in English! As I alluded to above, only God knows.
In the evangelical world we are often put “in charge” of planning, directing, or running programs with little if any shepherding. If you haven’t ever been “thrown into the ring,” it’s just a matter of time. Sometimes this is called the moment of sink or swim. In one regard, this is good for maturing Christian. We gotta learn to fly (reliance on the spirit) at some point and we likely won’t get there if we never simply “JUMP!” On the other hand, if this is the only option, it could leave scars. The better plan is to disciple those “under” you to walk with you, learn by your example, and be guided and coached before being asked to fly. They need a shepherd and whether you realize it or not, this is the pre-eminent call to every believer. That we each might disciple one, two, three, twelve, and perhaps eventually 70 under our tutelage. This is the biblical plan of multiplicity and needs to be taken seriously and done well. But fear not, if you were just thrown into the ring being asked to plan and run some kind of an event such as a small group, a bible study, a prayer meeting, or worship service; this will help you to do it with excellence.
Start with prayer. Get a prayer team, an accountability partner, those that you are hoping will join you in the endeavor and be devoted each day to prayer. Think and pray strategically before you begin the rest of the points below.
Two is better than one. Invite a partner. Being the “BIG DOG” isn’t Biblical.
Consider your primary goal as shepherding others. How can you use this “event” to truly demonstrate Jesus and bring others closer to Him?
Think big. Be a visionary. What does it look like to do this exceedingly well for Jesus. What is the measure of success? What are the why’s and the how’s of the plan. What are your strengths and what do you need help with? What does great fruit look like? How can this influence and shape similar events to come?
Consider mapping it out on paper. Brainstorm either in a meeting or by something shareable and get feedback. Look for red flags, big wins, and things you haven’t considered. Pray for the eyes of others. When you enlist the help of others it builds spiritual alliances and surrounds you with success partners. Let your success all be the success of others.
Consider the ACTS (Adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication) of prayer.
Make a goal and schedule and stick to it. Keep yourself and your team on target communicating every day with the major goal of shepherding and encouraging. Consider encouraging text messages, gifts, links to inspiration, and whatever it takes to help prepare your team for what you see. Learn to encourage even when your frustrated with someone.
Consider appointing leaders of potential situations. If you are considering breaking up into small groups, consider asking and empowering those you ask before the event. Let them prepare, help them prepare, and paint big pictures. Walk with them. Communicate to the group what their role is. Consider doing some research for them for whatever you’re asking them to do to or at least ignite that fire. Perhaps send them studies or YouTube links on the content area.
Consider safety measures and precautions.
Always consider personal testimony. Let them know the time restraints, ask them to prepare, and possibly even meet them and listen to what they want to share and help coach them.
When something is out of your expertise, find articles, videos, or in person help from the experts.
If you have subgroups for the event, regularly check in with them as you carefully and positively encourage them towards best measures of planning and communication. Lead by example.
Be ready to shepherd people from start to finish and in a spiritual sense remember that “performance” or “skill” isn’t everything. There are a lot of other dynamics that will go into building a team.
Think about ways to use other people’s gifts in the periphery. Think outside the box, and perhaps even advertise asking how people may want to contribute. Always encourage quality giving, serving, and interaction.
Build, use, and look for opportunities to shepherd. If you aren’t usually in this position, it may present an opportunity that you don’t usually have to impact someone. What are those moments and who are the people?
Be strategic and intentional. Don’t use most of your energy doing something that isn’t part of the big picture. Recruit people as much as you can but be sensitive to the perceptions you may be sending to each person and consider aspects you may not be prepared for or ready for. But also invite the spirit to do what is out of your understanding and expertise. Don’t put anyone or anything in a box.
Think personal “face to face” communication and phone calls over text messaging and email; but realize they all have a place in positive planning and communication.
Everyone should be impacted with a feeling of clarity and confidence in exactly what they need to do, how they need to do it, and when it needs to be done. Reiterate this with follow up in writing communication.
Help each individual understand their role within the team and be open to what else they may contribute. Learn to interpret everything as positive and don’t allow yourself to ever be offended. Shepherd everything and learn to be shepherded by anything and anyone. Learn from the least of these. Don’t allow pride to slip in, pray against it, and appoint someone to watch and coach you helping identify issues that need more of your attention. Find someone that doesn’t only have your back but has your eyes.
Inspire creativity and cooperation amongst a team and those outside of the team or on other teams.
Take individual ideas and refine them to actionable solutions. Iron sharpens iron but help your team understand that great conversation at times will sound like a debate. Encourage but shepherd. If someone says something that seems off, be an agent of edification and restate what they said from a positive perspective.
Clarify collective goals and deadlines so that each person sees their role in achieving them.
Create and shepherd great meetings: Define the Meeting Objectives, Create an Agenda + Send Calendar Invites, Create a Safe Space for Collaboration, Strategically Choose Attendees + Appoint Important Roles, Use Best Practices to Stay on Track, End With Clear Actions, Owners, and Timelines.
Respect peoples times and energy but also set the tone for kingdom giving of peoples best: Use positive reinforcement to recognize achievements rather than magnifying shortcomings. Never publicly reprimand a team person in front of the team. Avoid blaming any specific team or individual for a problem. Research shows that this destroys trust and confidence in a leader. Instead, opt for curiosity and stay solution-oriented. Ask for feedback. Asking for feedback increases people’s trust in you and their leaders. Lead by humility and sacrifice.
Avoid side discussion and keep people engaged. Start with a story or study that pints to Biblical understanding towards your where you are shepherding.
If you are married don’t meet one on one with someone of the opposite sex, always meet in three or more with mixed gender meetings.
Learn to always shepherd, especially difficult people. Always walk by Matthew 18 and never let the sun go down between you or a team member without coming together in love. Work harder on understanding other people’s perspectives and learning their love languages. Consider the relationship over the need to be “right.” Take a Philippians 2 perspective of humility. Don’t allow yourself to be mad or frustrated.
I recently posted a photo of Will on social media holding a picture he painted of the power wagon I and our family built a couple months ago. I think a few people picked up on this being more significant than just another great image Will painted (because he certainly has several of those.) Over the last two months our family has been talking about the Hebrew word “TOV” and recently decided to have weekly range nights centered around the expression of this word.
Several months ago, when I was finishing the power wagon, a very good friend of mine, Paul Turnbaugh, who is also my two older boys’ art teacher at Faith Christian School, decided to use some images I took of the build as models for a student art painting project. He painted a sample that was ridiculously good in a couple hours and then shepherded the students to paint something similar. Most of the kids finished the project in a day or two but Will spent a lot longer.
Several people have asked me about the theme behind the Power wagon and I haven’t shared much. This power wagon is a one-of-a-kind build and generated a lot of questions on the Facebook post that I didn’t answer. I am a pretty transparent person, but there is some measure of personal intimacy tied up in this one. The build is called the 49’r because the power wagon that was “restored” is a 1949. But the term 49’r has become an idiom better known to describe the gold rush of 100 years earlier. I have taught history for a large part of my life and the main goal of studying history is so that you can learn from the past to make progress towards the future. 49’r is a term that brings thoughts of not only mining for gold, but coal mining, traveling into uncharted territory, being ready or preparing for the worst, hunting for food, and all of the basic tenets of survival that came with the American westward expansion. Life wasn’t easy in that era, and well in many ways, when I was building this, I was feeling similar tribulations in my own life. I have always found when I need to spend a significant amount of time in thought and prayer I either need to go sit on a deerstand or build a rock crawler, in this season I did both. You can see some signs of these hardships in the build from things like the simple single barrel shotgun affixed to the tailgate storage area, the hand-crafted trapping knife I made on the front dash, the shroud protruding from the grill, even the fact that it has a rear seat under the canvas so that my family can join me for the journey takes on the idea of how the west was won. But not everything was won, some was lost, and this build also is a mosaic of that and perhaps some feelings of what has happened recently in my life, namely deciding to leave the church we have been involved with for the last 10 years. There are several hints to this, but the biggest one is the custom cast buffalo as a grill ornament. Westward expansion came out a terrible cost that personified both the best and worst in America. Much was learned. The buffalo in many ways also signifies the spiritual picture of what I have endured. Buffalos are strong resilient creatures but when pressured can become an unreconcilable force; yet in the end are agents of spiritual sacrifice at the same time. Indians believed that God saw through the eyes of the buffalo.
You might already know this, but the buffalo has long been an icon associated with strength, abundance, gratitude, and provision. The buffalo symbolizes a deep respect for nature and is considered a guiding “spirit” for many things that lead to “good.” In fact, the buffalo is a symbol of what God provided as good and man “used” as a necessary evil. Since the beginning of time there has been wrestling match between what God created and gave to humankind as “good” which is the Hebrew word “tov,” and what the world has done to these things which is the Hebrew word “ra” and often associated with the ways of the world or Evil. As this is not a post on Critical Race Theory, what we did to the Indians, or the various ways we are destroying God’s good creation, those things are difficult for a Christian to ignore. We are given a free will and told by God to follow our inner spirit or desire to return to the devotion of Eden he intended us for – and offers us a plan to do that. On the other hand, the world, the fallen spiritual powers, Satan or whatever other “evil” you may believe in, is constantly tearing at you to become like “it” which is contrary to the Lord. The plan for humankind is to reclaim their original design and/or calling and with Christ in us, operating as living sacrifices unto Him, we might be the physical manifestation of everything that is of and from God – that which is Tov.
Westward expansion was a picture of this struggle. We were given what was and is a pristine picture of what the Lord is offering to us. If you have ever been to a remote part of the Rocky Mountains or Alaska at the base of a mountain stream or glacial lake with the stars beaming down on you at night you know exactly what I am referring to. The buffalo was also a picture of this to those that first lived in the land. The buffalo was accepted as a gift from God and literally every part of the animal was used, and nothing was wasted, because it was understood that because the buffalo were giving themselves willingly (God made them easy to hunt and plentiful), that gift should be fully appreciated and even treated as a sacred experience. My boys and I are avid deer hunters and take on these same values today. In similar ways, the Bible uses a good deal of typology, themes, and motives to describe the essence of His plan for us.
Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ) is a Biblical Hebrew word that refers to the aspects of sentience, and human beings and other animals. [1] The primary meaning of the term is ‘the breath of life’ instinct in the nostrils of all living beings, and by extension ‘life’, ‘person’ or ‘very self’. There is no term in English that correctly corresponds to nephesh, most English translations use the word “soul” but that doesn’t nearly encapsulate the full meaning. [2] The Nephesh is better considered as the spiritual connection that is present in living beings that connects them to their creator. An example of this can be seen with the Hebrew word rûach (“breath”, “wind,” or “spirit”) it describes a part of mankind that is immaterial, like one’s mind, emotions, will, intellect, personality, and conscience, as in Job 7:11 and various other places. Essentially every living being is created as “good -TOV” with a nephesh that connects them spiritually to their creator. Even after the fall we read this over and over, nearly 754 times telling us about our desire to naturally be “of” the Lord.
If your following the expedition 44 series on original sin you will recognize that this flies directly in the face of Calvinist Theology which says the doctrine of original sin removes our ability or desire for Good and overwhelms every being with a desire for bad or the Hebrew word ra (evil.) This reformed doctrine is described as Total Depravity and is the first pillar of Calvinism which I do not subscribe to and unfortunately believe that most people have been influenced more by this doctrine that what the Bible would clearly teach about who we are and what inclinations we have. The doctrine has become engrained into the evangelical mind as a truth of the Bible and has had some devastating effects on Christianity.
I believe that we have a desire (Hebrew yetzer) to either choose to live for the lord or to live by the ways of the world and that every decision determines whose we are. Joshua proclaimed “choose this day whom you will Serve” and Moses made a similar statement in Deuteronomy 30. This is described in Hebrew thinking as the yetzer hatov vs. the yetzer hara. It essentially teaches that you aren’t born with a natural desire to be sinful but that you choose which way you will go with every cognitive decision.
It certainly doesn’t mean that we aren’t greatly influenced by the sin of this world but believe that God has overcome through Jesus once and for all and that power is enough to be completely free and redeemed in who you are and living with each decision pointed towards the joy and devotion of life in Him. Are you going to be of God and be tov, or of the world and give into the ra.
My boys helped build the 49’r. This might surprise many of you, but I have built many of these kinds of vehicles (over 30) and I am not attached to any of them. However, the experience that comes with them I will never forget. One of the reasons it is named 49’r is because when I would come home from working on it my face was covered in dirt and grease and I looked like I had been mining. My kids helped me regularly with cutting, welding, cleaning, sanding, and traveling for parts. These memories are the “spirit” that can’t be lost and the basis for many Jesus-discussions and moments as we remember that era of life together.
When my grandpa passed away at 98 years old, I didn’t receive or inherit anything from him. But a few years before my grandpa had given me an old stall shovel and within a week of bringing it home the 100 year old wooden handle broke. My uncle reprimanded me for actually using the shovel, but I know my grandpa gave it to me to be to be used! I replaced the handle with a piece of DOM tubing and am confident this shovel will outlast me now. I am sure it made my grandpa smile as he used to rebuild everything instead of just buying a new one. For years I felt “bitter” about not receiving any kind of inheritance at his funeral, but over time I gained something much more valuable than anything material I may have been given. It forced me to dig deep and embrace my memories and what I did receive from my grandpa.
I grew up in a great spiritual family. My mom and dad were instrumental in giving me the tools to own my faith and were great examples of it. But my father died when I was young. Many years before that, when I was just a kid, I started spending the first few weeks of every summer with my grandpa. Those were some of my favorite childhood memories. I would get up at 4am and work till mid-morning then go to their home and swim the rest of the day. He was a retired heavy machinery contractor that never really retired. My summers consisted of all the things little boys love: shooting guns unsupervised, drinking from a garden hose or even the creek, rebuilding engines, digging random holes just for fun with the excavator, digging ponds, welding, fishing, driving the old Massey tractor up and down the banks of the river that flowed through the farm and mowing hay in the 100-degree Indiana summers. After my dad passed, I made it a point to visit my grandfather in Indiana several times a year with our family. To everyone’s surprise he bought a brand-new dodge truck back in 1991 and I have fond memories of it. My grandpa loved fires in the fireplace, so my wife and I made it a labor of love to take the old dodge out to get firewood whenever we visited. My young boys would beg to take it for drive. They grew up driving in the bed of that truck on hot summer days to get ice cream in town. Sometimes when we arrived it had a camper slid into the back which meant we were going fishing. The old dodge became a mosaic of who grandpa was. This power wagon has very much come with remembering my grandfather and what he meant to me and reaffirming some of the same memories with my own boys. Spiritually I have also dug deep to remember the theological conversations I loved with my father that have obviously greatly impacted my life.
I often think about the memories and life skills that come out of these “projects” in life. My uncle recently told me he was selling my grandpas old truck to someone else. For a split second the hurt of not receiving anything of my grandpas returned to me; but I soon was overcome by amazing memories that meant far more than the physical truck. I didn’t need the material item to remember what my grandpa gave me in life. Today as I think of what God gave us as “good – Tov” I think of the things that I want my boys to have in life and it isn’t “material things.” I am often reminded by not having anything material from my grandfather that I don’t need them, that I have so much more than that. Interesting that Jesus didn’t have anything either. That is the same way God asks us to think about Tov and Ra and our time on this earth. Don’t worry about the stuff of the earth (often associated with ra). Don’t get too wrapped up in a 40 our work week that you forget the more important aspects of life. Dwell on the experiences that He gives us both here and now and what is to come. In many ways, the buffalo on the grill of the Power Wagon reminds us that we should always be moving forward towards the spirit of tov. To not lose sight over what really matters.
When my good friend Paul assigned this project Will didn’t treat it like a regular school assignment. He treated it like the gift that it was to him – all that was TOV. He painted the spirit of the buffalo in the wind behind it to signify that it isn’t just the material truck, but the entire spirit that personified this project in his mind (and his teacher Paul knew this.) It represented all that came with it. Memories of deer hunting after we worked on the truck for a couple hours, power washing the patina to get it just right after his Saturday morning soccer games, talking about how we should build it, learning how to lay down a weld and being surprised that dad was going to allow him to put some beads down on such an amazing project. He is already talking about learning to drive “stick” in it.
According to Merriam Webster, “Tov is from the Hebrew word for “good”, but with a fuller intent which implies something which fulfills the purpose for which it was created. First used where God pronounced what He created was ‘good’; also, in describing the tree of the knowledge of ‘good’ (tov) and evil (ra).”
I agree with the dictionary, but at the same time understand that the dictionary often misses the deeper under tones of the Bible. The word tov would best be translated with the word “functional” in regard to the order that God created. God calls forth the seeds he has embedded in creation, creation brings forth those seeds with the seeds of future life in them, and God calls this process that postures towards him as TOV.
What God wants is for us to image Him. It means capable of, presently engaged in the process of, and destined for, completely fulfilling the Divine purpose for which it was created.
In short, Tov represents the desire to completely live in affirmation of your reclaimed image of God to a broken (ra) world in this lifetime and whatever may come thereafter. To replace the chaos of this fallen world with the order that God has given to be tov, fully devoted to Him.
1. Horst Balz (ed.), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (3 Volume Set), 1993
2. A.B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament, Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1904/25, p.200-201
Calvinism and/or reformed theology (which some consider having traits of Calvinism but not all of it) has never been appealing to me. So this article may be better deemed, something like, “my issues with reformed theology” or “Why I am not reformed in my theology.” My father was in opposition to this kind of theology, the closest I ever got to it was when he begrudgingly allowed me to attend Moody Bible Insititute. Despite their ever-growing reformed bend, he supported my decision to attend. My dad was confident that he had equipped me with the foundational tools to explore the Bible for myself, and I will admit – he had given me a natural advantage of recognizing the slant of reformed theology from an early age. Many of my close friends are reformed and I first want to preface this article by saying my reformed and Calvinist friends are my brothers and sisters in Christ and are part of a God–honoring movement which has preached Christ, detested sin, acknowledged that God rules on His sovereign throne and proclaimed the glorious doctrine of justification by grace through faith according to the Scriptures. I am even sometimes jealous of how they have convinced the world that much of what their view teaches (PSA, Ransom and Debt theories of atonement, ETC [eternal conscious torment], and predestination to name a few) as simply what the Bible teaches. For instance, if you are using the Romans Road or some step plan of salvation to tell someone what they need to do to be saved, then you likely have taken on some Calvinistic ideology without even knowing it. The average Christian American naturally believes some reformed theology as part of their faith likely because they haven’t really ever dug into the “why and how” or had someone that shepherded them to openly seeing an alternate Biblical theology. Many casual church attenders and seminary students alike have not fully explored the ins and outs of reformed thinking or the alternatives to it. However, some have and have determined that this is their best interpretation. I have a good friend from Moody that is reformed that is extremely well educated and knows the ins and outs of theology and has a very good view of reformed theology. Personally, I gravitate towards either taking the “whole none yards” of Calvinism or none of it in terms of views that hold more water. The picking and choosing of some points but not others within Calvinism make the least sense to me, which frankly is where most American evangelical churches land.
Some have even left the faith because these reformed ways of thinking didn’t add up, and they thought this was their only option. Those that have left, lacked a better understanding of the Scriptures and theology (and therefore God Himself) & chose to walk away completely thinking it was their only option. There are many repercussions to thinking like a Calvinist and most of them don’t look a lot like Jesus. Calvinists have a reputation for wanting to fight in their theology. Sometimes this is phrased as “standing strong”, or “fighting for what they believe,” but many view Reformed theology as the traditional understanding of Christianity. I always like to remind people that my Free Will early church view is far older than theirs and would therefore be the more traditional or “conservative” view. At any rate, I invite you to peacefully consider perhaps a better theological view either way. I always want to encourage you to take your time. Major decisions in life and faith don’t and shouldn’t happen easily or quickly. Let the spirit move you to an unbiased truth towards whatever direction you land based on the spirit’s conviction and the word of the Lord.
I say this peacefully, but quite transparently, quite frankly if my choice was to believe in the God and doctrine of Calvinism or walk away, I am afraid I also may have chosen to walk away. Calvinism just doesn’t add up in my opinion and I will tell you why. Please do not take this as a personal rant against reformed theology. I just want to share from a perspective of spending the better part of my life into the exploration of the Bible and why I land on the free will side rather than the reformed side.
If this teaching is new to you, please dig in and give yourself a prayerful unbiased approach to seeking the truth before the Lord. Big decisions often need time and a receptive spirit. If you are hoping to change someone’s mind by sharing this article, be gentle, be open to their exploration, and shepherd their concerns and discussion. Also be open to their biblical point of view! It may take some time and the character of Jesus displayed in you.
I have many issues with Reformed and Calvinistic thinking. The problems run deep, seeping into nearly every biblical consideration, but my major issue looms in the idea that we are utterly depraved, and completely incapable beings, stuck in the miry muck to continually fail over and over again likes pigs in defilement (which I believe was literally and figurately Jesus’ message to us.) Thinking this way leads to doom and gloom ideology sending the trajectory of the spiritually reclaimed catapulting over and over again back into the wrong direction. Rather than claiming renewed life in Jesus and living in freedom and walking a road that leads to joy; reformed thinking requires you to keep desiring a deliverance over and over and never being capable of walking the Edenic life Jesus has planned for us on the earth and into the next spiritually. Reformed Theology essentially leaves you believing you are unable to claim what Jesus offers to you. Reformed thinking needs to keep adjusting what seems to be the clear and simple path of freedom and redemption to have to be continually re-examined in a faulty lens resulting in theological gymnastics. In short, my biggest issue with reformed thinking is that it doesn’t follow the path to freedom that is such a large biblical motif in the lens of the Bible from start to finish. It doesn’t fit with the nature of God to perpetually transform you into His image. God didn’t design us to remain in sin and defilement but gave us a plan to return to the beautiful Edenic life today and on a path to sanctification that leads to a completely renewed spiritual being and recreated heaven and earth. Jesus asks us to walk away from the depravity and claim new life in Him. The Tov life.
In the Bible the Exodus story becomes a recursive biblical theme. In this motif the foreshadow of deliverance was the marking of the doors and passing of death that led way to a cognitive free will choice to leave the former life and walk towards God. It was an individual making a choice by their free will to step out of bondage and ask for life. That offering of the gift of grace shows true in both the original exodus story, many exodus motifs throughout the pages of the Bible, and in the New Testament through Jesus in the “new exodus.” This is the reciprocal circle of grace. God offers the option to choose life, the people then responded by showing their actions to accept that plan for them (which was blood on the doorpost in the original story.) God, then accepting this, delivers them. From there they are asked by God to follow the Torah in devotion and be “all in” following the Lord and no longer living in the ways of their past. The completed circle is for God’s people to follow in complete devotion, which is viewed as a theocracy. But as we know, in the OT the Israelites chose man over God time and time again. They made repeated cognitive decisions that gave in to the yetzer ha ra rather than yetzer tov (Hebrew words describing the inclination towards desires, one evil, the other good.) Israels story shows that they needed deliverance over and over again, but God’s message to them was that he had already delivered them and now they needed to simply complete the reciprocal act of grace and live by His precepts and claim the image bearing role of the royal priesthood they were created for. Today this seems to be a microcosm of Free will thinking verses reformed theology. Free will believers claim Jesus and live redeemed lives believing they are capable and can walk in Jesus here and now in a beautiful picture of sanctification. Reformed theology seems to wallow in the muck of Israel not understanding the gift given, not believing that they were intended to fully bear the image of God both in this world and the next… they get hung up thinking the voices in their head and even the Bible itself tells them they can’t, they aren’t able. They seem very much to represent the religious hierarchy of Judaism that Jesus constantly was at odds with saying repeatedly that we can’t live in this kind of sanctification. Yet, Jesus over and over taught to not live in our mess; we are asked to live each day walking one step closer to the master. I believe we are all called to take the next step towards the master in discipleship answering the amazing gift, the circular dance of reciprocal grace given to us by Him and expected that we lead others as the hands and feet of Jesus in this same beautiful calling. In Jesus time and today the goal of claiming deliverance and coming to Him through devotion was described as leaving everything on the beach and completely walking in the dust of the rabbi… Life was not simply a repeated deliverance experience that you were stuck in or needed to happen over and over again to be redeemed. Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of His spirit was enough once and for all, embrace it and never look back, run with Jesus! Claim your freedom and be all in, completely devoted to this life, here and now set apart to live an incredible sanctified life that truly bears the image of Jesus.
The message to you hasn’t changed…
See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. “But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish.
DEUTERONOMY 30
NOTE: Unfortunately, most of this information has been collected by me in the form of everything from photocopies, notes for and from videos, sloppy quotes from videos and lectures, and who knows what else over the course of the last 20 years. Most of this message is in my head in near photographic form. This is likely the least scholarly post you will ever read from me in terms of giving credit where credit is due and possibly even nearing the line of plagiarism, although I certainly would not do that intentionally and have done my best to at least mention people’s names that I believe the content originated from. But please accept any apologies, and if you recognize anything as quoted, please let me know and I would gladly give credit. As I will do my best to keep this concise, I could likely write book upon book on several of the subjects at hand; this article will simply seek to establish a launching ground and give a basic premise for thought and theology.
Drryan@gocovenant.com
Here are some current “reformed” views you may be familiar with: (You also might be a Calvinist if you agree with most of what the following views represent.)
COVENANT: The Reformed tradition is largely represented (but not limited to) the Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Reformed Baptist denominations. Covenant theology (also known as covenantalism, federal theology, or federalism) is reformed. Just to be clear when I or any of my colleagues talk about keeping God’s covenants, we are NOT associating with reformed covenant theology. In the same regard, CTS (Covenant Theological Seminary) in general, also is on the other spectrum, or opposite of reformed theology, being of “Free Will” choice rather than that of a reformed covenant view. To this regard, institutions like CTS are holding to the word “covenant” for what it purely means in the bible and not what “man’s theologies” have turned it into. It is sort of like claiming the rainbow for the Biblical meaning, not what modern America has tried to make it represent. Unfortunately, there isn’t one word to describe the views that those hold that are on the other side or opposite of reformed views. Some would allude that anyone opposite of election theology would be on the “Free Will” side of theology, but again there just isn’t a singular good name for those that are “not in agreement with” reformed theology. I often say, “I have not been reformed” in my theology, meaning I side with the way Christians thought before and after Christ for thousands of years before the reformation changed their minds.
The majority of “spirit led” (charismatic) congregations are not reformed. You have probably picked up on this, but as you will find below, most of the tenets of reformed theology are viewed as “quenching the spirit” by the Pentecostal or charismatic bodies. However, this isn’t always the case, although I might argue that it should be in a better lens of theology. If you believe in the complete moving of the spirit, you are naturally going to lean towards a theology that is more in tune with a dynamic view of God’s workings. Some would say that Reformed theology limits the understanding of the spirit of God. This gets into a conversation on dispensationalism which also tends to most often tie into reformed ways of thinking.
The five solae of reformed theology are: (ANY “CHRIST ALONE” PHRASE IS A CALVINISTIC THING)
Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”): The Bible alone is our highest authority.
Sola Fide (“faith alone”): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
Sola Gratia (“grace alone”): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
Solus Christus (“Christ alone”): Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King.
Soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”): We live for the glory of God alone.
Systematic Theology (as adverse to Biblical Theology)
Systematic theology and biblical theology are two ways of studying the teachings of the Bible. Systematic theology tends to be reformed and organizes everything the Bible says on topics such as sin, Christ, and government. It seeks to present the entire scriptural teaching on certain specific truths, or doctrines, one at a time. Biblical theology is a way of reading the Bible as one story in narrative form and tends to be free will and spirit led. It seeks to understand the progressive unfolding of God’s special revelation throughout history, and how Scripture’s many human authors tell one story—about Christ—by one divine author.
POPULAR REFORMED INDIVIDUALS
Alistair Begg
John Calvin
D.A. Carson
Francis Chan
Matt Chandler
Ray Comfort
Jonathan Edwards
Louie Giglio
Wayne Grudem
Tim Keller
Erwin Lutzer
John MacArthur
J.I. Packer
John Piper
David Platt
R.C. Sproul
Charles Spurgeon
B.B. Warfield
Rick Warren
Paul Washer
James White
Augustine
Martin Luther
Joni Eareckson Tada
George Whitefield
Warren Wiersbe
To the same regard, here are some organizations and websites that you might be familiar with that also are regarded to have a Calvinistic bend to them:
The Gospel Coalition
9 Marks
Lifeway
Desiring God
Ligonier
Got Questions
Christianity.com (Found plenty of Calvinist articles and authors here)
Theopedia (as clearly seen in their post on free-will)
gty.org (John MacArthur’s Grace To You, a.k.a. “Grace To Few”)
Focus on the Family
Challies.com (Tim Challies)
Josh Harris (joshharris.com)
Bible.org
Crossway.org
carm.org (Matt Slick)
compellingtruth.org
moodymedia.org (Erwin Lutzer)
TULIP:
During the reformation people started believing that the human soul* was corrupt at or before birth and therefore tried to systematically make sense out of it (thus systematic theology emerged). As a result, these men had to develop a whole system of theology in order to attempt to be consistent. In order to make this system of beliefs easier to remember, they called it “TULIP”. Each letter of this word stands for one of their doctrines. The following are the basic teachings of “TULIP.” To be clear, all (or each and every one) of the points are Calvinism. As I have mentioned, some people that consider themselves to be reformed may only hold to some of these points. Personally, I would affirm that all of it is Calvinism, and I would not agree with any of the points as I will get to. Unfortunately, this article will not be exhaustive but seek as more of an introduction to thinking better. I will give you a starting place for Biblical consideration.
Most evangelical Christians would not consider themselves to be “Calvinists.” In many circles of Christianity this is a bad word. Yet TULIP shows the heart of Calvinistic thinking, and most evangelicals actually believe a good deal of it to be true. I agree that you can hold to part of these views (as I do) or maybe even believe a couple of them to be mostly true, but when you start agreeing with half of them or most of the facets of them you have to ask the questions, are you actually a Calvinist? Tongue and cheek I often say, “you might be a Calvinist if…” you agree with more than one of these tenets. There are 2-point Calvinists and 5-point Calvinists and they are both, or are all “Calvinists.” I would also argue that if your 1 point is the T which is the foundation to Calvinism, then yes, you are still a Calvinist! Therefore, reformed theology is the difference of essentially saying we only adhere to the parts of Calvinism that we want to.
* *the Hebrew word Nephesh is the best term, as the word soul has taken on a lot of platonic meanings that weren’t in sight biblically
Before I jump into my issues with Tulip, the acrostic that summarizes a particularly reformed understanding of salvation, I realize that I would likely not summarize their beliefs to their satisfaction, so please take a moment to read their own explanation of it so that you can truly approach this from an unbiased perspective. Here is a post from Ligonier which is a reformed Herald. Also, to their defense TULIP is intended to be directed towards the work of salvation, some of my issues with it below will no doubt venture past soteriology.
Total Depravity
“T” stands for Total Hereditary Depravity. This is the core belief of the TULIP doctrine. This is the belief that the human soul is born corrupt. As soon as a baby is conceived and/or born, according to this doctrine, it is in sin and in need of a redeemer. There are many arguments that show positively that the human soul is not sinful at birth but only when it commits sin. First of all, notice that God gives man his soul or Nephesh (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Zechariah 12:1). Can or would God give a man an evil soul? This would contradict James 1:17 which says that every good and perfect gift comes from God. God does not bring forth evil (Matthew 7:18). Furthermore, why would Jesus have said that the one had to become like a little child to enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:1-3). Was he saying that one has to become sinful and depraved in order to go to heaven? Of course not!
Unconditional Election
This doctrine says that since man is born in such a sinful state, there is nothing that an individual can do in order to be saved. They say that salvation is solely the work of God, not man. After all, we are saved by grace and not works (Romans 3:24). Furthermore, they say that God chooses those who will be saved and those who will be lost. God’s Word is never going to contradict itself. Having said that; there are too many places that show that man must play a part in his salvation. Peter preached on Pentecost that those present must “save themselves” (Acts 2:40). Further, the Lord said that only those who “do” the will of the Father will see the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21). The Bible teaches that we are going to be judged by our “works” on the last day (2 Corinthians 5:10; John 12:48; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). If this Unconditional Election were true, there would not need to be a judgment, for God has already decided. We would essentially all be created as robots; how would that give glory to God? Finally, this doctrine makes God unjust because he would be condemning some having never given them a chance to serve him, even if they desired to do so.
Limited Atonement
Unconditional Election eventually led to the doctrine of Limited Atonement (one problem requiring a solution for another – thus what I mean by theological gymnastics). This is our “L” in the TULIP doctrine. This is simply the belief that Christ only died for those select few whom God had chosen. Thus, the atonement for sins given by his death was “limited”. First, the Bible says that Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6). Limited Atonement says that He only died for the Godly or perhaps that Christ died also for elect sinners that God would then make Godly. John 3:16 tells us that God so loved the “world”. God did not only love a select few but all men (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). The words “FOR ALL” occur many times describing the gospel and all means all.
Irresistible Grace
“I” stands for the next doctrine to spring up called Irresistible Grace. This is the belief that the elect (those chosen by God) are going to be saved whether they desire to be or not. Joshua told us that we have the ability to choose whom we will serve (Joshua 24:15). Peter told those on Pentecost to save themselves (Acts 2:40). Irresistible grace is tractor beam Christianity.
Perseverance of the Saints
Finally, we come to the “P” which is Perseverance of the Saints. We often hear this doctrine called, “Once saved, always saved”. The Scriptures teach that man has the ability to choose whom he will serve and that his eternal soul will be judged on that choice. No one who believes in “Once saved, always saved” would deny that Paul was one of the “elect”. Yet when we read 1 Corinthians 9:27 we find that he constantly “worked” to stay in that saved condition. We can also look to Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8) as one who was saved and then lost. Judas was another. He was given the ability to do miracles like the rest of the disciples (Matthew 10:1).
BREAKING DOWN THE ISSUES
ORIGINAL SIN
I am well aware that my issues with Calvinism go much deeper than simply the tulip. For instance, I don’t “only” have a problem with Total Depravity but also would not even embrace a reformed view of what is called simply “original sin.” We have a several part youtube series on this here. “Original Sin” is the doctrine which teaches that because of Adam and Eve’s sin we are all born guilty before God and that we inherit their guilt from birth. Sometimes we may refer to this as Original Guilt. This is also called Augustinian Anthropology or Augustinian Original Sin. In other word’s everything gets pinned on Adam. I believe the bible clearly teaches we are all responsible to God for our own actions and in some part, the communal action of the Christ’s bride the church.
With Original Sin and Total Depravity come some other “ditches” that you’re going to have to figure out if you go that way…
The immaculate conception of Mary was created as a work around to hold up original sin (how could Jesus be sinless if Mary had Original Sin/Guilt?)
The first 400 years of the Church did not believe this.
There is zero evidence that Judaism ever believed this. Modern Messianic Jews do not believe this.
The Eastern Orthodox church along with some Protestant denominations never adopted this view (Anabaptist and some Arminian Methodists and some Wesleyans).
Augustine was the inventor of this doctrine in the 5th century and much of it was due to his importation of his pagan background into Christianity and lack of the knowledge of the Greek language.
NONE OF THESE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AFFIRMED THIS: Clement, the Didache, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, or Justin Martyr
Augustine and Original Sin -The doctrine came into the church through Augustine of Hippo (396-440 CE) and the doctrine was originally called Concupiscence.
Augustine could only read Latin, not Greek, or Hebrew.
Augustine came to original sin by reading Romans 5:12 in a bad Latin translation.
The original Greek would read: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned”
Yet his Latin translation said, “all have sinned in Him (Adam)”. Where the Greek says that death has spread to all because all (each) have sinned.
Concupiscence
Concupiscence, according to Augustine, relates to Adam’s sin being transferred through sexual reproduction.
Its root definition is a base sexual desire. We get our word concubine from this.
He believed that through this all men are born with their will, body, and mind corrupt, and this is transmitted sexually. They inherited the sin through the sexual act leading to birth.
He taught that Jesus had to be born of a virgin because he connected this to the sexual act. Therefore, the virgin birth spared Jesus from a sinful nature.
I affirm the virgin birth but Isaiah said this is a “SIGN” and has nothing to do with original sin.
God’s first command to humans to be fruitful and multiply. If sex is in itself a sinful act as reformed theology says than God would be commanding humans to sin.
We also get the doctrine of infant depravity from this, and Pastors today even keep this bad doctrine going:
John MacArthur said, “At no point is a man’s depravity more manifest than in the procreative act…by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked.”
Augustine of Hippo said, “The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their frames; the minds of infants are far from innocent.”
INFANT BAPTISM – babies began being baptized to wash away the guilt of original sin
Critical Race Theory
If Original sin is true and sin is transferrable and imputable no Christian should have an issue with Critical Race Theory which states that you are guilty of the original sins of America (Racism and slavery) even though you were not born yet and had no choice in your race. Yet CRT says that those born in certain demographics must atone for the sins of previous generations and they are just as guilty as the original offenders.
This is the same logic as the Doctrine of Original Sin in the Bible so if one affirms Original Sin you should also affirm CRT as it follows the same logic (yet I don’t know of any Reformed church that would align with CRT.)
Pro Life (Abortion issue)
In Original Sin even children are born guilty and under the wrath of God. Most Christians (reformed or not) are against abortion and are Pro-Life. But according to Original Sin God’s hatred is against these babies at birth (possibly unless or until baptized). His Grace can’t cover or won’t them or anyone else. We often talk about babies being innocent but according to original sin they are actually guilty and worthy of death according to this theology. The reformed disconnect then, is that if you believe babies are born as evil or against God, then ending their fetal life doesn’t pose as many problems for you (which is a problem.)
My first and last paragraph hit largely on this, but put simply, reformed theology says man is incapable of living as consumed by freedom, redemption, reconciliation, and joy in living for Jesus in their sanctification journey on this earth. It is a very limited view of Jesus’ work imo, they are looking largely for sanctification to in the life to come, which is often referred to as escapism. Calvin’s theology begins with the doctrine of “Total Depravity,” this idea of “original sin” is a theology of man and natively foreign to Scripture. Instead, Scripture teaches that sin is the result of willful disobedience to God (Hebrews 10:26; 1 John 3:4). Calvinism allows man to say, “Sin is not my fault. It is my ‘sinful nature.’” However, Scripture teaches that sin is our fault. Scripture teaches that man has freewill and is able to choose whom he will serve (Joshua 24:15) and that this devotion is what leads to intimacy with the father. Receive life and never turn back! Every opportunity can be a decision to honor the Lord with your heart mind and Nephesh.
CALVINISM & ARMINIASM
Now let’s be clear about something. All Christians believe in God’s sovereignty, providence, and the biblical term predestination. These are not concepts unique to Calvinism. Calvinism is a particular interpretation of them. There are obviously other interpretations, such as myself and the free will church. Armenians, for example, also believe in God’s sovereignty, providence and predestination. But they have a different interpretation of these biblical concepts than Calvinism’s. Arminian Theology and Calvinism share many similarities that I would oppose. The spiritual danger of TULIP Calvinism is in believing that God is not loving enough, not good enough, to save all. Do you really think that God’s character would allow himself having the ability to choose who will and won’t be saved, that it has nothing to do with Free will? Could I love a God who could rescue everyone but chose not to? Typical Armenians don’t believe that God is powerful enough, or sovereign enough, to save all. TULIP Calvinists don’t believe that God is good enough, or loving enough, to save all. Both are problems that I cannot “assume”take on or assume” in my understanding of God.
I Am a Christian
John Calvin was a man. Christians follow Jesus, isn’t a doctrine named after a man rival to the basic idea of following Jesus? Paul admonished the church in Corinth for following men, when they were saying, “I follow Paul” or, “I follow Apollos” (1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:4). Even if I agreed with Calvin on every theological point, which I do not, I still could not describe myself as a “Calvinist” because I want to follow Christ, and Him alone (to use their own words!) Similar to what Paul asked the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:13), I would ask those who are Calvinists, “Was [Calvin] crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of [Calvin]? I have a similar hangup to following “Calvin” as I would to a church that elevates the pastor to nearly “god” status. There isn’t a place for it in a Jesus only Theology.
The Church Was Predestined & WHY PRAY
“Predestined” is the Biblical word proorizó and takes on an idea of predetermination or something that is marked out beforehand. It is used in the New Testament six times in Acts 4:28, Romans 8:29&30, I Corinthians 2:7, and Ephesians 1:5&11 and every time the text doesn’t give us many clues as to exactly what it really means. Hermeneutically when this happens we need to seek what the rest of the bible and other similar words may have to say on the subject and perhaps even take a look at what the intended audience understood the text to have meant (such as extra biblical sources which were commentaries of the day). In this case, luckily the Old Testament is our “torah” for the New and has several allusions to what happened with God’s intentions at the beginning. Psalm 139:16 gives us more but is also one of the Calvinist proof texts, so let’s see what it says. I often find that most of reformed theology is based on English and Latin translations, not the language of the original manuscripts. Unfortunately, a “simple reading of the English” often doesn’t convey the best image of the original language. Perhaps our modern day or classic (unfortunately reformed) understanding of predestination needs to be adjusted. Does God know everything you will do before you are born, before you make a single choice? Does He know all men’s choices from eternity past? Does he actually cause every little thing that happens? And if He does (which is what Calvinism believes), and He never needs self-adjustment, then in what sense can we claim that we have free will—or, for that matter, how could anyone, including God, ever hold us accountable for any of our actions if they are all predestined? I could write 10 pages on this one.
In this case (as with most), the original language in my opinion settles the dispute in all the passages that I know of, nut lets take a hard look at the one the Calvinist community tends to emphasize. The literal Hebrew is, “in Your book all of them written the days formed [when] none of them.” The NASB reads, “the days that were ordained for me,” the words “for me” do not appear in Hebrew they are inserted into the English translation. Was this just simply trying to make it read better or is this inserted theology? I would say the later.
The first verb is a Ni’fal imperfect, usually designating an incomplete or reflexive passive voice. In other words, the writing isn’t finished. It’s still going on. That’s quite a bit different than the idea that it is all written in the book before you were born. This is just basic Hebrew, nothing complex. Thats one reason why any traditional Jew thinks the reformed idea of predestination is preposterous.
The second verb (“ordained”) also betrays theological bent (it isn’t an acceptable interpretation by any law of hermeneutic that I know of.) The verb is a Pu’al perfect, that is, an intensive completed action. We know the root, yāṣar, but it takes a theological assumption (you have to want to go this way to align with other preconceived doctrine – again theological gymnastics) to translate it as “ordained.” The basic meaning of this root is “to form,” “to fashion” in synonymous parallelism with bārāʾ “create.” It describes the function of the divine Potter forming man and beasts from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7–8, 19). It occurs in association with bārāʾ “create” and ʿāśâ “make” in passages that refer to the creation of the universe (Isa 45:18), the earth itself (Jer 33:2), and the natural phenomena (Amos 4:13; Ps 95:5). See also Ps 33:15; 74:17; 94:9; Jer 10:16; 51:19; Zech 12:1). Most of this can be found in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, one of my all-time favorite references and a great example that not everything that comes from seemingly reformed organizations is reformed, (i.e. Moody Press). (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (396). Chicago: Moody Press.)
The word also occurs in the sense of God’s framing or devising something in his mind. It is used of his preordained purposes (II Kgs 19:25; Isa 37:26; 46:11; Ps 139:16) as well as his current plans (Jer 18:11).
If the prepositional phrase, “for me,” isn’t in the original text, then how could this verse be enlisted as a proof of God’s foreordination of all human choices? Why couldn’t it simply be read that God knows what He plans to do before any human days are numbered? The translator’s addition of “for me” alters that entire direction of the text. I’ll get to the New Testament but let me first address something that connects here.
PRAYER: We see many times in the Bible that God in his omniscience can change his directions and does. (Moses pleading with God not to destroy Israel, Abraham saving Lot, Jonah and Ninevah etc…) His nature doesn’t change but His actions may which is ironically what make Him truly omnipotent. He is influenced by the very heart of man. His ability to adapt to the pleads of humanity is essentially His response to our devotion to Him in prayer. Predestination by Biblical definition seems to best mean there is an overall plan and God is dynamic enough to accomplish that plan despite the course of action and free will through his church (and perhaps individuals).
In other words, if you prescribe to Calvinism, why pray? If you believe God is immovable in every way, then why would you pray in terms of supplication? Yet we know the Bible speaks over and over of the ability to “ask God.”IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN PRAYER (at least the facets of supplicational prayer), IT IS GOING TO BE HARD TO BE A CALVINIST!
But lets get back to the Calvinistic idea of predestination. In this way of thinking, every individual has been predestined for salvation or condemnation. Man has nothing to do with receiving salvation; it is completely up to God whether an individual spends eternity in heaven or whatever your view of hell might be. It is basically a cosmic lottery! In the first chapter of Ephesians and the eighth chapter of Romans, Paul speaks of the idea of being “predestined.” Thus, the idea of predestination is a biblical concept. However, as I argue above, Calvin has confused the biblical definition. Paul wrote that God chose “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4) to save a group of people (the church). Nowhere in Scripture do we read the Calvinistic idea that individuals were predestined for salvation or condemnation. Paul wrote, “he predestined us” (1:5) and, “we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined” (1:11). Concerning predestination, Paul always speaks in the plural (a group), not singular (an individual). Second, if grace were “irresistible” it would make evangelism unnecessary. Why would missionaries need to go into all the world and preach the gospel (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16), if it was God who irresistibly and miraculously converted men? Why would Paul say, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). If Paul’s preaching and example had nothing to do with the conversion of souls, someone ought to have told Paul that!
Christians Can Fall From Grace
The Calvinists teach the doctrine of “Once Saved Always Saved.” To me, it seems that by simply logically considering the mass amounts of individuals that have seemingly met the biblical description of “one that is saved” yet later meet the description of one who isn’t, is overwhelming. The idea that if someone truly becomes a Christian, it is impossible for him to fall from grace seems nearly erroneous in real life, how could that possibly be? Yet, if you were to ask any Calvinist, “Can a person fall from grace?” Surely, the Calvinist would answer with a resounding, “No! There is no way a person can fall from grace.” Which baffles me, in light simple scriptures such as Galatians 5:4, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” Jesus Himself taught that one could fall from grace, “If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned” (John 15:6). Seems really cut and dry, if you are wrestling with this subject your real wrestling match is with the doctrine of Calvinism not the Bible!
If you take a once saved always saved view in light of the seemingly loads of people that leave the faith you have two options. Either God’s tractor beam miraculously draws them back to faith at some point before judgment. This could be entertained by an “apostle’s creed” understanding that Jesus while in the grave preached to degenerates giving them a final opportunity to accept Him. Perhaps this is a foreshadow to the New Covenant as well; but the difference is they didn’t have Jesus in the OT and in the NT we do. The other way this could work in a Calvinistic view is taking a higher level of the definition of salvation. I routinely say Judging salvation isn’t a line we should be drawing, that is for God and God alone. But that also would possibly address this matter. For instance, Jesus calls his followers all to become disciples and we get the idea that only about 70 of them existed at His death. This is defining a disciple by those that left everything at the beach (family included) and fully followed him. By this thinking, few will be saved, but it might settle the dispute of how some claim to be saved and fall away. In some reformed circles this influences theology that continually questions your salvation leading to multiple altar calls and baptisms, revivals and more. The are you “sure you are sure” way of thinking.
DRAWING
Calvinists love to talk about God drawing people to Him in defense of predestination. I affirm that Christ draws people to Him through His spirit, but some clearly refuse it. The Father’s “drawing” out of the world’s bondage by deliverance (which leads to salvation) and the devil’s stealing (which leads to damnation) are cosmic factors that work in conjunction with, but not in control of, the human volition. In other words, if a human heart is willing to submit, the Father will lead them to a saving faith relationship with Christ. The Father “draws” people (or not) in response to their hearts. Sometimes it seems like this is a continual process and sometimes the scripture seems to imply a limited window. It comes back to the problem of reformed theology and free will; reform theology essentially believes that no one truly makes their own decisions, that every decision was made for you by a supreme being. No one can refuse something that wasn’t ever offered to them.
IT (CALVINISM) IMPEDES DEEPER DISCIPLESHIP
If I am predetermined from the beginning, i.e.. part of the cosmic lottery, essentially a robot made to follow God or not, and nothing I think or will matters, (in fact, logically to this regard I am not really capable of even choosing…) Then why would I try to be a disciple? Yet Jesus frames discipleship as the pre-imminent call or reason to follow him. He continually asks us to make this choice to “FOLLOW HIM.” Calvinism minimizes the need to shepherd and disciple. This seems against Jesus’ teachings not in alignment with Jesus and His calling of us.
IN CONCLUSION
Greg Boyd really jumps into this in a reaction to a “hard to read it’s so bad” John Piper article.
Calvinism therefore teaches that God SPECIFICALLY WILLS every evil event in history as well as each person who will suffer eternally in hell (ETC.)
Calvinism teaches that God ordains every single evil thing that people do IN SUCH A WAY that God is all-holy for ordaining these evil acts while the people who do the evil acts God ordained them to do are sinful for doing them. This is the classic problem with evil.
Calvinism teaches that God has a “sovereign will” that ordains and delights in evil and a “moral will” that is revolted by the evil his “sovereign will” ordains. This is why I and others have claimed that God’s “moral will” must hate God’s “sovereign will” if Calvinism is in fact true.
Calvinism seems contrary to the nature of God and his plan for us. It seems rival, not in unison with God’s plan of sanctification offered to all who choose to enter into this allegiant relationship. Where does this leave you? Joshua asked the “over and over again” depraved Israelites to make a choice. Are you going to live in freedom or be stuck in your old ways? “Choose today” he said. God continues to obliterate the lines of disunity created by the severing what sin has caused. Calvinists want to redraw these lines.
Choosing to be stuck in your depravity is a choice that shows disunity resulting from the selfish, sinful choices freely chosen by man and not given to you by God. This “crutch” has been claimed as an excuse and perhaps the main issue for cultural and religious divisions since Eden. The challenge of Jesus’ teachings came to those who believed in the righteousness of their own spiritual heritage, that they can bear the Image of God and live in hope, reconciliation and freedom from their past, they are recreated holy ones and live in the power and Spirit of Jesus Himself.
I get that living this way was likely easier in the first century as a believer that was immersed in the “leave it at the beach” definition and living in a “circle the wagons” Jesus community. But the fact is the Amercian way of working 40 hours a week and acceptance of worldly bondage hasn’t changed the words of Jesus or the Bible. Have the ways of the world caused you to be in a continual spiritual dismal seemingly needing to be “rescued” over and over again? We often are what we allow, make more Godly decisions and choose to be more aligned with Jesus than the ways of this world.
The intrinsic beauty of any relationship is found in the heartfelt decision of a person in their nephesh to choose to be invested in that “Jesus” relationship. Of all the beauty found in the Garden of Eden, the choice Adam had to choose God and God to choose Adam is the pinnacle of the symphonic relationship offered to humanity. God made a choice to create mankind, God made a choice to create a space for mankind to exist and thrive, and God created us to have the meaning of our existence found in relationship to Him, but God in confidence of His own character allows the beauty of choice to be offered to His most prized creation. Even though Adam made the choice to allow sin to creep in, God also had an immediate plan for Adam and all of us to rejoin Him in the Edenic way of life. God offers this way of life 6000 years ago, He offered it to Israel, He offered in through Jesus and still offers it in modern worldly culture.
Perhaps I am conflating the process of sanctification and a Calvinist’s emphasis on Total depravity. Some Calvinists have found better definitions and better views. Within any paradigm there are good views and poor views and much of this article is taking face with the “more difficult” views of Calvinism. You can’t put everyone’s theology in the same box. I also would give some time to understanding that Calvinism could be correct in the eyes of the Lord. No one knows. I am waiting for the heavenly Mars Hill moment when all truth is given. Until then, as always; I and the crew at Expedition 44 have sought to best help you understand an exegetical approach to interpreting what God has for us.
That said, I will hold to my convictions that any of the points of Calvinism stain the gift and beauty of what Jesus offers freely to us in complete abundance. It also deeply affects our purpose for existing, working, and even our relationships with others. The spiritual implications of the death of Christ and his resurrection from the tomb sent an earthquake experienced not only on Earth, but in the spiritual realm through which humanity now has an opportunity to receive empowerment and restoration found deep in the fibers of their being. The covenant faithfulness God has been after has now been exemplified and found in Jesus Christ as a living example to humanity of the life and relationships were created for. We are living sacrifices whose very nature is not the embodiment of death, but life. We are the image of life in Jesus to its fullest!
If we believe God’s heart for humanity is that everyone come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) it will never come from guilt, shame, or condemnation, (John 3:17), but from a people saturated with the same irresistible character traits of God himself. The ones who create life where there was death, the ones who foster peace where there is chaos, the ones who grow and build and create beauty.
God didn’t need mankind to continue what He created in the garden, but offered man an opportunity to partner with Him, devoted to His purposes. This was an incredible gift offered to Adam and that same gift is offered to us today through the blood of Jesus Christ. That’s a life worth living and a far cry from the ugliness and depravity of mankind depicted in Calvinism. Make a choice today to receive the full extent of liberation offered to you as a redeemed child of the Kingdom of God. Claim and live to the fullest image of Jesus here and now and to the glory of what is to come!
SPECIAL THANKS TO THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ARTICLE: Dr. Matt Mouzakis, Dr. Steve Cassell, Dr. David Lunow, & Paul Lazzaroni
SOME BETTER RESOURCES:
https://soteriology101.com/ I like Flowers as he does a great job of refuting Calvinism but he is a provisionist which means he still affirms PSA and eternal security which I do not agree with, but still love so much about what my brother teaches.
“Watch out—beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.”
One of my gifts is tearing into the text. I have spent a lifetime looking at the Word of God and learning to explore everything the text has to offer. I typically prefer a socio-rhetorical “textured” approach of exegesis, if you aren’t familiar with this term Vernon K. Robbins book, “Exploring the Texture of Texts” [1] or Fee and Stuart’s “How to read the Bible for all it’s worth” [2] are both great places to start.
Eisegesis and exegesis are two different styles of interpreting the Bible. “Eisegesis” lately has almost turned into a bad word within theology while “exegesis” has become the cool thing! There is a place for both.
Exegesis is a method of interpreting the Bible that focuses on drawing meaning from the text itself, using a succinct method of interpretation such as historical, cultural, and literary context to understand the author’s intended meaning and the mindset towards the intended audience. (That is the textured approach I describe above).
A good Eisegesis, on the other hand, is taking the text or Biblical subject matter (often topical), considering the exegesis of appropriate texts and applying a commentary or insight to the teaching based on one’s own ideas, beliefs, doctrines, and theology. Unfortunately, most Eisegesis is not “good” eisegesis as most commonly they forget to start with an exegesis – it can be a person’s commentary without due diligence to the text. I have often said when you take the TEXT out of its CONTEXT all you have left is a CON. The result is often simply making out the word of God to say whatever the person wants it to say or fits their agenda and is sometimes referred to as “proof-texting.”
While exegesis is considered the more academically valid approach to interpreting the Bible, eisegesis is valuable to bring an application to the audience in the present tense setting. In certain instances, the minister may need to make the text more potentially relevant to their congregation by drawing parallels between the biblical text and the current cultural, social, or (possibly) political environments and perspectives. (Based on the exegesis of the text, how does this subject or topic apply to us and our current environment.) This subject matter is debatable as most scholars have very little room for eisegesis and conversely some pastors have never truly learned to exegete the text but might be masters of eisegesis while walking a slippery line of possibly proof-texting.
Every good exegesis starts with the original language.
+ Watch out is one word in Greek, which is horate or ‘orate in Greek. This is one situation where it helps to know a little Greek. When I read this, I first take note of the use of the root word ‘orate. It means “beware.” But what I first recognize (that you might not uncover in an interlinear) is that it isn’t a regularly used word to describe “beware”. Jesus could have used the most common word prosécho̱ which means watch, watch out, notice, look after, look out, or perhaps fylássomai apó, or na fovásai. In fact, if you were to just simply go to google and type in “what is the Greek word for beware” you wouldn’t find the word ‘orate at all. It was a very rare choice within the language and quite strategic. It’s a strong appeal for intense scrutiny. Jesus uses this term several times in a sense of extreme warning such as in Luke 12:15 to be on your guard. When a strong word is used it usually carries strong implications. So, I am going to be looking further in the verse to find these pointers. One more thing to note, the sentence starts out with the word, in Greek the first word often emphasizes the subject matter, it is a way of getting your mind to focus on what’s important or telling you what not to miss here. In some ways it resembles an exclamation point in English.
+ The next word is “take heed” which is the single word / verb blepó. This is similar to the first word and is the use of Hebraic reiteration. In other words, He isn’t just using ‘orate – the strongest word for beware, but then even reiterates the idea! This is a form of artistic emphasis. This is the same word used in Matthew 11:4 for hear “and see.” It is also used and translated by the NASB and most frequently in all capitals letters to show enunciation in Mark 8:18 “DO YOU NOT SEE?“ The emphasis of linking ‘orate with blepó is the strongest language found in the New Testament and comes right from the lips of Jesus. Do I have your attention yet?
+ The next word we come to is likely the heart of his message and in English we read the word “leaven.” In Greek the word is zumé. Jesus often uses words with multiple meanings and that is what is happening here. In the first century they didn’t have the medical understanding we have today. Bread was important to Jesus (bread of life, bread and water etc.). At every level people understood that leaven was used to make bread rise and often gave way to a better taste ( i.e. giving into something that felt good), the connotation was that it is simply part of most people’s lives (but took on some negative implication). Jews didn’t partake in “rising bread” during Passover – they didn’t use leaven. This was a commitment to being set apart and undefiled. You see leaven is actually yeast and yeasts are technically an infection. Yeasts are eukaryotic, single-celled microorganisms classified as members of the fungus kingdom. Yeast converts carbohydrates to carbon dioxide and alcohols through the process of fermentation. The products of this reaction have been used in baking and the production of alcoholic beverages for thousands of years. [3]
As an example of eisegesis, let me expound on a cultural dynamic to this text. In the first century when you got an infection it was serious. It could end up leading to a slow painful death. Life was pictured by bread but also by the blood. I won’t let your minds wonder too far but yeast infected the blood and they knew that they were familiar with that understanding and the words of Jesus to infer this. There is also a meaning to be found in the way that the leaven of bread or the bumps of an infection rise up on your skin. There could be an implication of alcohol too, that a little soon turns into too much and leads to sin.
As you can see, a good eisegesis should lead you full circle back to agreement of the exegesis of the text. You can see that here agreeing with my eisegesis as Strong’s suggests:
“2219zýmē – leaven (yeast); (figuratively) the spreading influence of what is typically concealed (but still very dramatic). Leaven is generally a symbol of the spreading nature of evil but note the exception at Lk 13:20:21 (parallel Mt 13:32,33).” In the first century, infection often could lead to a slow grueling death that not only affected you but would require care givers to look after you. It was thought of as a selfish accusation of not caring about the ramifications of your actions. Alcoholism in the first century often took on the same selfish persona.
I don’t want to get too sidetracked on unleavened bread, but as an example of continued eisegesis I also want you to completely understand the reasoning and implications. You will notice that a good eisegesis still takes into account the exegesis of other scriptures within the lens of your topic. The Israelites were to eat the Passover lamb “with unleavened bread” (Ex.12:8). They also were to remove all leaven from their homes and eat unleavened bread for an additional seven days: “On the first day you shall remove leaven from your hous-es. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel” (v. 15). Traditionally there is also a sense that he Jewish people “came out of the land of Egypt in haste” (Dt. 16:3) and had no time to wait for their bread to rise. So the Passover holiday commemorates the Exodus with unleavened bread. To be clear, unleavened bread is only avoided for these 8 days around Passover. But simply because God doesn’t forbid it the rest of the time didn’t mean that it was “good” or tov or recommended. There are different theological takes on this. Some would say it was “allowed” or “acceptable”, others would say that God set the “ideal” and that partaking of at any time was frowned on, while some arrive at everything in moderation. Interesting how this conversation ties very similarly into a modern discussion of Christians and alcohol.
In most cases, the eisegesis will result in a relevant modern cultural message very similar to the exegesis of the text to its original intended audience. In this case, however, you cut it, leaven is associated with sin. Jesus wanted His followers to be different. He wanted them to be holy. The apostle Paul wrote, “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6). A tiny bit of yeast can produce two large loaves of bread. Leaven permeates the other ingredients, begins to ferment, and expands. Sin is similar. It begins small, like a little germ or infection, then grows bigger and bigger. In many cases, it can totally overtake an individual. God required His people to eat unleavened bread for eight days to remind them that they were to be separate from the world, set apart from sin, debt, and transgression. God had redeemed them from bondage in Egypt and wants you to live redeemed and sanctified -free from the bondage of the world. This is the exodus motif we read of repeatedly in the Bible and is why Jesus sets the path for what is called a “New Exodus.” It was a continual (in your face every day) reminder that they were to be given solely to God and that their kingdom is that of Jesus not of the world.
Do you see the circular connection between a good exegesis and eisegesis?
+ Then we are told that the leaven picture connects to the “pharisees.” This is where your theology connects to the entire lens. What have you learned elsewhere in your exegesis? This is archetype language. An archetype is an example of something. Abraham is an archetype of great faith, Job righteousness, and here Jesus identifies the pharisees, a group that should be the best of Godly people because of their religious knowledge as actually being possibly the worst; or the archetypical example of people that personify sin. This is contranym language. They should be the most holy, yet by allowing their sin to take root and grow they have become the worst; people that claim God yet do not know Him. They were “puffed up” people. The were full of pride. Pharisee” is derived from the Aramaic term, peras (“to divide and separate”). This literally refers to a “separatist“; hence, a Pharisee was supposed to be someone “separated from sin“; but Jesus is actually saying they are the worst of the sinners, don’t let yourself slip into that kind of sin. According to Josephus [5] they numbered more than 6,000. They were bitter enemies of Jesus and his cause; and were in turn severely rebuked by him for their avarice, ambition, hollow reliance on outward works, and affectation of piety in order to gain notoriety: Matthew 3:7; Matthew 5:20; Matthew 7:29.
An important part of both exegesis and eisegesis is asking then, how do these connect and what can I take away and apply to myself?
To put it together – the text is as strongly as possible warning to not get prideful and puffed up like the pharisees because it infects the blood, makes you proud (not humble like Jesus) and infects the life (bread and blood) and leads to a slow grueling death that affects not only you but those around you. It is exactly the opposite of who you were created to be as an image bearer for a Jesus kingdom.
Lastly, we have Herod. This one is harder, you can’t just pull up an interlinear and find the answer -we actually have to think about it and possibly to some research (perhaps more eisegesis). What was Jesus saying by tying in Herod? Herod Antipas was the son of King Herod who executed all the children in Bethlehem as you might remember from the Christmas story timeline. He did this to find Jesus and put Him to death. Consider this for a minute. Herod was fanatical about power; he had his own children killed in order to preserve his throne. This Herod was the one who imprisoned John the Baptist. You probably remember that John spoke out against him because Herod stole his brother’s wife and was living in adultery. John called him out for the sin rising in his life that was generally kept secret “under the covers” or “in the darkness” we often say. But John exposed his private sin and brought it to the light of the public. What Jesus is saying is that Herod let leaven creep into his life and became a terrible person as a continual result (another archetype of the most sinful of people). This is a stark warning to not act on letting sin seep into the darker places of your life thinking that no one knows about them. God sees people for who they are from the inside. This becomes a very intelligent word play as the sexual ramifications also affect the blood which lead to life or death.
In the end the simple phrase speaks volumes. In Hebraic terms this is referred to as a technique that was later called remez. It was eloquent for rabbis in teaching to use part of a Scripture passage or an idiom in a discussion, assuming that their audience’s knowledge of the Bible would allow them to deduce for themselves the fuller meaning of the teaching. Jesus, who possessed a brilliant understanding of Scripture and strong teaching skills, used this method often.
Lastly, asking the hard questions is important. Have I been biased based on anything? Are there other considerations that I have left out? In this case, you may know that I don’t like politics! I don’t have alot of room for this thought but if I am truly going to be unbiased, I need to consider every aspect. In this case part of my exegesis and eisegesis is going to be phoning a friend. My good friend Steve Cassell is “in” the middle of the Christian political world. I asked him to comment on what the political ramifications might imply from this text today.
In our modern context, how would Jesus’ warning about the leaven of Herod be in view today? I acknowledge the tenuousness of this topic because of how polarizing and offensive any political commentary can be in today’s modern and delicate version of Christianity. Yet the weightiness of the Master’s warning cannot be neglected by us who hold vigorously to the Truth as a remnant people.
In Jesus’ day, Herod also represented the chief political figure of the established governmental system that affected every person’s life. Politics touches us all whether we want it or not. Even within the Jewish system, there was a large segment of confessing ‘Herodians’ (Mk 3:6, 12:13, Mt 22:16) who were those who believed that part of the spiritual ‘reformation’ of their culture was to be done through supporting political systems. How parallel for progressives today. One of the present-day dangers of the ‘leaven of Herod’ is those wrongly, yet likely well-intended, believers who fervently adhere to thinking that a righteous government will somehow bear the fruit of righteous people. That potential is reserved ONLY for the King and His Kingdom to produce. It is a subtle trap that has caught and bloated vast swaths of Americans today and it is in danger of leavening the whole lump of the Body of Christ which is the loaf that was baked in the fire and oil of the atonement and Holy Spirit.
-Dr. Steve Cassell
This is just an example of a very simple text but is serves to give you a better idea of what the text should mean to us today. It also may give you an idea of what you should be getting out of a text and how much room you have for application to yourself or current environment.
The phrase Jesus quotes is very creatively crafted to staunchly warn about seeking self-glory publicly and allowing and acting on private sins, both lead to the gradual rotten path of death.
Vernon K. Robbins. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996.
Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth (Zondervan, 1981; 2014 reprint)
Legras JL, Merdinoglu D, Cornuet JM, Karst F (2007). “Bread, beer and wine: Saccharomyces cerevisiae diversity reflects human history”
Yesterday my family joined our extended Jesus family at Beloved Church in Lena for Christmas Eve Service. Dr. Steve Cassell at one point emphasized the importance of food at Christmas making an allusion to the gathering around food being a central theme of the word, yet eating too much, gluttony can be a sin. As with many things in the scripture and taught be Jesus, the table represents something that can be the source of sin (worldly pleasure) or the source of great joy (heavenly pleasure). I encourage you to shepherd people humbly to Joy this Christmas, bring heaven to earth. Let the Table lead you to Joy.
If you have ever experienced a seder meal, you likely realize a lot of the connections of Jesus and the meal. As this article will not be exhaustive as there are several great books on this subject, I would like to point out something you may not have considered that hinges around the image of the table and the invitation of Jesus.
Jesus offers himself, a ravenous feast. The Hebrew word ‘akal takes on the idea of complete consumption, licking the plate clean -the Levitical meal, the holy fire that consumes the sacrifice. A word fit for a Christmas meal that reaches back through the ages to father Jacob as Isaiah 58:14 suggests. So, what is it that Jesus offers at the table to his disciples or to us today? What was the central message of the table? What do we devour in this feast?
Jesus offers an inheritance through complete devotion. Unfortunately, this word (inheritance) means something different to us than it did in the times of Jesus. It is associated today with money and likely brings to mind family bickering (Jesus wanted little to do with the money of the world). Today it means what we get when someone dies. At the time of Christ the inheritance was celebrated and handed down during your life not as a result of death. Jesus didn’t have that in mind, although death was a part of the plan, the big picture was quite the opposite, Jesus offered himself as the nakhalah, the portion given you by legacy that can’t be bought or earned, passed down to you as a member of the family that you were adopted into, your greatest gift that would in turn be completely consumed in your life mission to offer the same legacy to others through devotion at the table through your life. Jesus offers himself primarily to us as life here and now. In theology we call this the primary message. Jesus offered himself that we may have life (as we die to ourselves in humility) and exceeding joy here and now, the bonus is heaven and the recreated earth to come. “Heaven” (pie in the sky thinking) was never meant to be the primary message, yet so many Christians today haven’t grasped the joy offered through Jesus here on this earth, they diminish this feast of Jesus to simply be something to come.
Yes, in this life we will have tribulation and trials, but the plan for you is to feast, to experience great joy, to be part of the great celebration that is unending, to claim the redeemed, sanctified life to its fullest in abundance through Him. You are a royal priest that is grafted into Eden. In Numbers 18:20 God is passing around the inheritance and the inheritance is Himself. Feast yourself on God. We are finally home, back at the Garden when He gave the very first command, ‘akol tokel, literally, “in feasting you shall feast” (Genesis 2:15).
Unfortunately for many life doesn’t feel like this and Christmas is difficult, (and don’t get me started on the pagan rituals etc…) If you aren’t living in the joy that Jesus offers, I would encourage you to make changes to move that way in the new year. Surround yourself with a tribe that is devoted to Jesus and living lives that are completely fulfilled and feast on Him. Dive into the Word that leads to Eden. Spend less time doing what the world says you should do and more time seeking the joy that Jesus intended for you here and now and yet to come. Cut off unhealthy relationships and actions and surround yourself with those that thrive in the kingdom of Jesus doing things that represent the Joy of the King. Don’t buy into the ways of the world, get out, run to Jesus and don’t look back.
Consider this year as you come to the Christmas table, to make this resolution for you and your family. Feast on the glory and wonder and love of God, feasting on His provision and plan, feasting on the day our return to the Kingdom was sealed. This is the Redemption Feast, and it isn’t nearly as much about the birth as it is about the victorious plan that was won at the cross and ascension of our Lord.
Eat! Rejoice! And sing with the angels, “Peace on earth and good Will (food?) for men.”
In evangelical circles, the word “anoint” often raises eyebrows and is met with varied thoughts, experiences, and perhaps even controversy. Hyper cessationists often act as if it is some kind of Star Wars-type force power (only the mature Jedi masters can do certain things) that some have and some don’t. There is possibly a small element of truth to that concept though. Many others in mainstream Christianity discount acts of anointing to only the physical acts and feel that anointing itself has little if any place in the modern church today. Still, others talk about the “anointed” as if they have some kind of branded stamp of approval from God that makes them “special” or potentially even “higher” than others. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard “don’t touch God’s anointed one” to indicate the idea that a minister is untouchable or needs no reproof or accountability. Most of these instances are perpetuated by the ministers themselves creating a type of “limited hangout” of self-protecting theology.
I believe everyone has received or is given the same anointing at spiritual rebirth. The Holy Spirit Himself IS the anointing of God. What we, in partnership with God, do with that anointing varies greatly based on the receiver, their revelation, and their discipline. Our Father through a covenant within the church intends to bring us through discipleship in Christ and lead us to spiritual maturity in our New Life. Anointing is a sign of the invitation of God to work in us and through us. Additionally, the grace that comes with the anointing will empower us to lay down our own will and desire calling on the indwelling of the spirit. Less of me more of Him.
This article will serve as a theological launchpad to help you understand how to recognize what anointing means and represents in the Bible but will by no means be exhaustive. There have been many books written on this subject and my goal is simply to get readers aligned with a more biblical approach to understanding anointing and greater discernment of what they hear and read. I cannot make a better introduction than my friends have done at the Bible project so start with this short video.
What does the Bible say about anointing?
Anointing is the ritual act of pouring aromatic oil over a person’s head or entire body.[1] There are 44 occurrences of anointings in the Bible (how divinely ironic…). There are at least 7 Hebrew words and 5 Greek words that describe anointing in varied ways. As you have heard me (us) say before, everything begins and ends in a picture of Eden, God’s ideals. As per the video above, “its meaning is rooted in the story of the garden of Eden, where God provided water for the dry land and formed the human, filling him with his Spirit”. This is the first Biblical allusion to anointing. The oil is a liquid symbol. It’s the water of life and God’s Spirit combined, used to mark a person or a place as a bridge between Heaven and Earth.” [2]
ANOINT: (Eng. tr. of several Heb. words— דָּשֵׁנ֒, H2014, to make fat, Ps 23:5 only, Gr. λιπαίνειν, to oil or anoint; סוּכְ֮, H6057, to pour, Gr. tr. nearly always by ἀλείφειν, to anoint, cf. Micah 6:15; מָשַׁח, H5417, to smear, Gr. tr. χριειν, to anoint, Exod 29:36, or ἀλείφειν, to anoint).
In antiquity, the use of holy anointing oil was significant in the Hebrews’ consecration of kings, priests (specifically the Kohen Gadol – High Priest), and sacred tabernacle/temple vessels.[3] Contrary to what some have claimed, Judaism is the only place in Ancient Near Eastern culture where we see anointing. The only definite case in which an Egyptian king anointed one of his officials is that of EA 51 (much later than the Biblical accounts). In this instance, Thutmosis III was probably engaging in a custom common among Asiatics, rather than that he was introducing an Egyptian custom into Syria-Palestine” [4] Gordon asserted that the practice of anointing was “well attested in Babylonian and Egyptian customs well before Biblical times citing the anointing of a king mentioned in the 14th cent. b.c., Amarna Letter # 37. One text from Ras Shamra refers to anointing Baal (Gordon, # 76; ANET. p. 142a; Baal & Anat, Syria, XVII [1936] pp. 150-173). However, this has been largely contested and I would agree that calling the aforementioned “an anointing” is a stretch. It was common practice in Ancient Near Eastern cultures to adopt language and practices from each other, especially in a religious context. It is always important to follow through with in-depth research to determine the oldest references to help determine their origins.
We see by Biblical account, that Prophets and the Israelite kings were anointed as well, in most (or all) cases, the kings were anointed from a horn. Anointment by the ‘chrism’ (a consecrated mixture of oil and balsam) prepared according to the ceremony described in Exodus 30:22–25 was considered to impart the “Spirit of the Lord”. It was performed by Samuel in place of a coronation of both Saul and David, although perhaps the anointings varied slightly by “horn” vs “flask” but that is arguable, and I will come back to this point. The practice of anointing was not consistently observed in royal coronations in Israel and scholars have scratched their heads trying to figure out why. The scriptural inconsistencies have created a theological problem to be debated among serious Bible academics. Some scholars believe anointing was only essential at the consecration of a new line or dynasty.[5] Some believe it is simply just not mentioned, while still others believe the lack of anointing in later biblical narratives suggests how far away Israel had wandered from doing things God’s way.
1 Kings 19:16, 1 Chronicles 16:22, Psalms 105:15, Exodus 40:15, and Numbers 3:3 all display kingly anointings; but after these instances, anointing seems to have been specially reserved for the High Priest. Exodus 29:29 and Leviticus 16:32 are examples as well and “the priest that is anointed” in Leviticus 4:3 are all generally thought to mean the High Priest. Adding even more facets of polemic discussion, we read David was thrice anointed.
“Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward.” – 1 Samuel 16:13
“And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.” – 2 Samuel 2:4
“So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel.” – 2 Samuel 5:3
Additionally, Inanimate objects were also anointed with oil, in token of their being ‘set apart’ for religious service. Thus, Jacob anointed a pillar at Bethel (Genesis 31:13; Exodus 30:26-28). As there are several theological views, I lean toward believing that we are simply reading the narrative of Israel’s slow decline or walking away from God and the lack of continued anointings is just another, of many, examples implying this. Because it was customary to anoint kings, the phrase “the Lord’s anointed” became a synonym for “king” (1 Sam 12:3; 24:6, 10; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam 1:14, 16; 19:21; Ps 20:6; Lam 4:20).
The High Priest and the king were both sometimes called “the Anointed One”. The term—מָשִׁיחַ, Mashiaẖ—gave rise to the prophesied figure of the Messiah and various foreshadows of Christ whose name meant ‘the anointed one’.[6] The Hebrew word Messiah and the Greek word Christ both mean “the anointed.”
“And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing” (Isaiah 10:27).
The Bible spiritually defines the anointing as “God on flesh doing those things that flesh cannot do.” There was more being implied than just a position or title being confirmed with a shot of lubrication. In other words, it is God doing something Himself through people like us that we couldn’t do on our own (2 Corinthians 4:7). There is a divine empowerment and/or a divine appointment that is unattainable without the Spirit.
It is the pre-eminent calling of the Bible, the core of a disciple – to be used completely God.
Like a combustion engine requires the fuel of petroleum-based energy to run, so the authentic Christian is baptized in the oil of the Holy Spirit to be burned up by the ‘all-consuming’ fire of God in service to the Kingdom.
In the Old Testament, the anointing was a ‘commissioning’ or calling for Yahweh to work through you. It was usually reserved for priests and kings but there are a few other cases. Under the New Covenant according to many scriptures such as 1 Peter 1:9, we are all commissioned as a royal priesthood, and therefore all have the anointing in us. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit, now. When we receive Christ, it means more than just becoming followers of Jesus. It means “the anointings” of Christ are in us. The diversity of that radical thought mostly dispels the current ideology of someone “having an anointing” to do some small ministry function or gift. If Christ Himself has anointed us with His anointing, then there is an infinite amount of possibility within each of us.
If you are “in Christ,” there is an anointing for everything you are called to do, no matter how small or how great the task. That’s why the Apostle Paul could say, “I can do all things through Christ (the Anointed and His Anointing) who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13). Notice the personification of the anointing being a “who” and not a “what”.
“And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But just as His TRUE and genuine anointing teaches you about all things, so remain in Him as you have been taught.” (1 John 2:27).
In the New Testament author/audience context, the “anointing” would likely have referred to another way of saying that a person was filled by, baptized by, endued by, or appointed by the person of The Holy Spirit. Look at the commentary here from the IVP (InterVarsity Press) Bible Background Commentary.
1 John 2:24-27.
Many commentators hold that the “anointing” (v. 27) is the *Spirit (cf. In 1417, 26; Acts 10:38); others suggest that it refers in context to the word, the message of the *gospel; in either case it alludes to the Old Testament practice of God setting particular people apart for his calling, which here applies to all believers. The Old Testament used anointing oil symbolically to consecrate or separate people (such as kings) or objects (such as the tabernacle) for sacred use. The ultimate consecration for such use arose when the Spirit came on people (Is 61:1; cf. 1 Sam 101, 9; 16:13). (Page 710, Second Edition 2014)
In the Gospels, we see a rebirth of ‘anointings’ happening in Jesus and His ministry. Anointing with oil had culturally become a tradition among the Hebrews and later the Christians alike as a practice of welcoming someone to their home. This was a way of declaring everything and everyone to be sanctified and made holy (person, ground, and space being sacred – all that we are and have are signified to be in Jesus). It also was common for early Christians to anoint themselves as a way to revive or energize their bodies a tradition similar to how taking communion was a reminder of the atonement and life of Jesus being active within the believer. A common use of anointing oils would be to honor someone as an act of hospitality or commissioning for a sacred function (apostolic mission). This is also where the idea of an ‘ordination service’ (laying on of hands, anointing with oil, sending forth [set apart]) was likely birthed.
In ancient Near Eastern culture, and particularly during the 2nd temple period, oil was used for the sick as well as applied to injuries. High-quality anointing oils, medicines, and fragrances that were created with pure ingredients had calming and therapeutic properties from the medicinal attributes of the natural plant extracts in them. This practice has seen a resurgence in recent times, so much so, that you can likely find someone in your church who will sell you some ‘essential oils’ to provide medicinal relief or benefit. The traditional practice would be to anoint those who are sick and pray (appeal) for healing in conjunction with the faith action of anointing them. In intertestamental and NT times actual anointing for medicinal (healing) purposes is attested in Judith 10:3; 16:10; James 5:14; and Revelation 3:18.
As a mark of hospitality or special honor, guests were anointed (Luke 7:37-46; John 11:2). We see this when the Magi from the East (likely descendants of Daniel’s wise men) brought oils (the best and most expensive) to the birth of Jesus which would have a connection to His royal inauguration as a king or priest but also strangely carry an application for His honored burial as a king and priest. The oils presented at the birth of Christ should be considered as an expression by which Jesus would bring healing to the world through His birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension after which He would send His Spirit to offer the same anointing to all who place their allegiant faith in Him and join His Kingdom.
The word “Christ” is a form of the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew title. He was not anointed by the High Priest following the ceremony described in Exodus. This was likely because the priesthood had become defiled before the Lord and had turned into a political office and was entangled in the ways of the world. This is why Hebrews informs us that Jesus was a Priest after the ‘order of Melchizedek’ and specifically NOT after the order of the Levitical lineage. Jesus didn’t join or align with any systems of the world but represented His sole Kingdom. Jesus was considered to have been anointed by the Holy Spirit during his baptism. A literal anointing of Jesus also occurs when He is lavishly oiled by Mary of Bethany.[7] Performed out of affection, the anointment is said by Jesus to have been preparation for his burial. In I John 2:20 John describes “anointing from the Holy One” and “from Him abides in you”. From dust to dust. we are given back to God.
The practice of “chrismation” (baptism with oil) appears to have developed in the early church during the later 2nd century as a symbol of Christ, rebirth, and inspiration.[8] The earliest surviving account of such an act seems to be the letter written “To Autolycus” by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch. In it, he calls the act “sweet and useful”, punning on khristós (Greek: χριστóς, “anointed”) and khrēstós (χρηστóς, “useful”). The practice is also defended by Hippolytus in his “Commentary on the Song of Songs”[9] and by Origen in his “Commentary on Romans”. Origen opines that “all of us may be baptized in those visible waters and in a visible anointing, in accordance with the form handed down to the churches”.[10]
In I John 2 the Greek, xrísma (from xríō, “anoint with oil” where we get the English word charisma) refers to the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, guiding the receptive believer into the fullness of God’s preferred will. This anointing functions through faith (pístis), i.e. God inwardly enabling the believer of His divine preferences (cf. also Hab 2:1-4; 1 Jn 5:4). Although this use is ONLY found in 1 John, it has become a common and regularly understood dynamic of anointing; by this text we regard anointing connected to a believers spiritual gifting (1 Samuel 16:13; Isaiah 61:1). Many have made the connection including Josephus. He links 1 John 2:20 (where ἀπό τοῦ ἁγίου is so used as to imply that this χρῖσμα renders them ἁγίους and τό χρῖσμα is used of the gift of the Holy Spirit, as the efficient aid in getting a knowledge of the truth; see χιω. (Xenophon, Theophrastus, Diodorus, Philo, others; for מִשְׁחָה, Exodus 29:7; Exodus 30:25; Exodus 35:14; Exodus 40:7.)[11] I also need to note that within the better-understood textures of biblical interpretation and hermeneutics, we should be careful in over-emphasizing something found in one passage with what seems to be some serious theological gymnastics (at least as displayed by Josephus in this case), yet at the same time recognize and understand that the Bible does teach this even if it is only in one place with a stretched possible connection to a singular Old Testament text.
One of the most noted instances in the New Testament for the usage of ‘anointing’ is found in Luke 4:18. This is the famous inaugural message of Jesus just after the infilling of the Holy Spirit associated with John’s baptism in the Jordan and then a forty-day showdown with the Adversary who intended to capture the man Jesus like he had done with every other mortal before Him. But, as we all know and rejoice over, Jesus would not be snared by the devil. This victory led Him shortly back to His hometown, at His home church, with His neighbors, family, and friends in attendance on that Sabbath day.
The scriptures say that the Scroll of Isaiah was handed to Him by the leader of the synagogue and then Jesus FOUND the place where it was written… This world ‘found’ is important for the context of our conversation and for what was happening that day of His ministerial launch. It was important that Jesus tied in His ministry with that of the Jewish ‘messiah’ (anointed one) and publically show and declare that He was being anointed by God for this calling, and not by man. We see here that the ‘proof’ of this was the person of the Holy Spirit being the anointing, instead of some human with naturally produced oil. This was God, all God, and nothing but God.
“The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me…” (Luke 4:18a)
Notice how the language describes that the reason that the Holy Spirit is empowering Jesus to do all the works listed in the later part of the verse is that Jesus “has” been anointed. In Greek, this verb is Aorist Indicative Active. Aorist means it is a simple past tense usage, Indicative means it is a verb type that describes the action, and the Active is the ‘voice’ that means the action is still ongoing. So, Jesus was anointed or appointed by God previously (we know this because Jesus was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world as noted in Rev. 13: 8) but was empowered for that specific function or calling by the Holy Spirit when He (Holy Spirit) anointed Him (Jesus) with His power and presence. Simply stated, the Holy Spirit was the anointing.
In Chapter 7 of the Didache, (also known as The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations is a brief anonymous early Christian treatise (ancient church order) written in Koine Greek, dated by modern scholars to the first or second century) it describes the process of baptism. While it does not explicitly state anointing, some interpretations suggest a potential anointing with oil following the baptismal meal. This interpretation stems from a variant reading of verse 10:8, which mentions the outpouring of the Holy Spirit “after this.” Some scholars believe this “after this” refers to an anointing with oil. We can glean that in very early Christianity the church embraced the idea that an anointing of oil was symbolically connected to the actual anointing of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. It’s important to note that the Didache doesn’t provide detailed instructions or explanations regarding anointing. The text doesn’t specify the purpose, method, or frequency of the practice. This would seem to mean that the early church did not accentuate any heirachial interpretation or application to being ‘anointed’ but mostly looked at it as something done by God that they were collectively acknowledging. This would have made all believers humbly equal in ‘the brotherhood’ because the ‘anointing’ was from God and was God.
CONNECTING THE TEXT AND APPLICATIONS
Recently our friend Frank Viola give a discourse on anointing and it was very good, I highly recommend it . You can listen here. He brings out the difference that Saul was anointed by a man-made flask and David by a horn made by God. I agree mostly with Frank or at least on his conclusive thoughts regarding anointing, but as theologians, we need to address the basic premise of his message. He would allude that the flask was man-made, yet we don’t know that for sure, the Bible doesn’t tell us this, it is an assumption. The Hebrew word used for flask is פַּךְ (pak) and is only found in three places in the Bible and is translated with the words flask, box, or vial. It is used as a noun but is derived from the verb פָכָה (pakah) which is more common and simply means ‘to pour, trickle, or run out’. We usually read that anointings were done by a horn. The idea was that each anointed person should be anointed by the same “amount” as others were, it was a unit of measurement. This way no one could claim that one received a greater portion than the other and make a spiritual argument for one person having more power than another because of the anointings.
Are you following this important thought?
We aren’t supposed to think that one person has been given a greater portion than another, this is one place where the Bible addresses spiritual equality and there are many others, there is no hierarchy in and under Christ and His church. What God does in you isn’t you, it’s Him.
This carries over into the New Covenant where we all start with the same anointing. In other words, the Hebrew usage functions as a noun that describes something that pours out and implies it to be a standard device of measurement. Could Saul’s “flask” have been a horn? Maybe. We don’t have the answer one way or another, but I would lean towards the “flask” actually being a horn because that is what we see in the rest of scripture. Other kings seem to be equally as “worldly” as Saul and were anointed by the horn including Jehu (2 Kings 9:1-13), Joash (11:12), and Jehoahaz (23:30). In Zechariah 4:14 the postexilic successor to David’s claim to the throne, Zerubbabel, is also called the “anointed.” In Isaiah 45:1 the Persian king, Cyrus, (a gentile ruler outside of the covenant) is called the Lord’s anointed. [12]
The implication seems to be that all of these kings started with an equal portion of God’s merit to serve Him, but most fell short of that calling and ended up serving themselves or perhaps the popularity of Israel’s finicky people rather than giving complete devotion to Yahweh. Yet at the same time, David seems to keep his “anointing” despite displaying the actions of someone living in continual sin. To that, we don’t know how God viewed David towards the end of His life. What we know was that he “had” a heart after God’s own and that is usually written in past tense which should cause you some further consideration on that point. Was that heart eventually lost as we typically interpret to be the case for the rest of the kings that were also anointed? We typically view David as a “man of God” but I would challenge you to consider the fact that he led Israel further from God rather than closer. Consider the eighteen women, multiple sons, palace intrigue, rebellion, hints of vindictive revenge, adultery (more than once since Ahinaom was Saul’s wife), conspiracy, and of course premeditated murder (certainly more than once). On the other hand, he was submissive, displayed a keen appreciation for God’s instruction, and was a brilliant narrator of God’s glory. He was obviously repentant and possibly even humble and of course loyal to One God to the very end. He gives hope to all of us yet was a person I would not have encouraged my (our) sons (children) to be friends with or would have described as someone that was “anointed” in the way that we use the term today.
The implication seems to be that all of these kings started with an equal portion of God’s merit to serve Him, but most fell short of that calling and ended up serving themselves or perhaps the popularity of Israel’s finicky people rather than giving complete devotion to Yahweh. Yet at the same time, David seems to keep his “anointing” despite displaying the actions of someone living in continual sin. To that, we don’t know how God viewed David towards the end of His life. What we know was that he “had” a heart after God’s own and that is usually written in past tense which should cause you some further consideration on that point. Was that heart eventually lost as we typically interpret to be the case for the rest of the kings that were also anointed? We typically view David as a “man of God” but I would challenge you to consider the fact that he led Israel further from God rather than closer. Consider the eighteen women, multiple sons, palace intrigue, rebellion, hints of vindictive revenge, adultery (more than once since Ahinaom was Saul’s wife), conspiracy, and of course premeditated murder (certainly more than once). On the other hand, he was submissive, displayed a keen appreciation for God’s instruction, and was a brilliant narrator of God’s glory. He was obviously repentant and possibly even humble and of course loyal to One God to the very end. He gives hope to all of us yet was a person I would not have encouraged my (our) sons (children) to be friends with or would have described as someone that was “anointed” in the way that we use the term today.
David is the story of one who was anointed but still led Israel way from God rather than to God. David was clearly anointed and seems to have an intimate relationship with God… which means our thoughts of the modern or evangelical current definition of “anointing” as some clearly defined stamp of approval from God doesn’t seem to line up with the biblical definition. As I began saying at the beginning of this article, anointing has never been a stamp of God’s unending approval and certainly does not represent any kind exemption from biblical accountability and ongoing discipleship or shepherding. In I Samuel 26:9 David said to Abishai, “Don’t destroy him! Who can lay a hand on the LORD’s anointed and be guiltless?” you have to remember that we are simply interpreting a statement that David makes. David (and every other Biblical author or character in the narrative) may display theology that is correct or incorrect. In this case we aren’t given the assertion as to whether this is How God would view David’s thoughts. This narrative of wondering if the character’s perspective is “of God” or not is similar to what we see in the Job story. Job’s friends seem to be giving “good” counsel and if we aren’t careful we would even read into it a theology or think that God would “agree” with them. Yet at the end of the book God makes it clear that He was not in agreement with their counsel. Unfortunately we don’t always get that clear direction in the Biblical authorship and stories and are left to determine some of this for ourselves.
In the case of David, we are simply being told David’s thoughts. In fact, some scholars believe that David was not in alignment with God’ s purpose or direction in this part of his story. God apparently delivered Saul to him more than once and David may not have been in alignment to carry out God’s fulfillment. [13] I do not typically agree with this theological interpretation, but it is a viable view worth noting. Was Abishai is alignment with the Lord and had the eyes to see (when David was not, but still submitted to him?) This ideology fits with other texts that we are told sometimes when we can’t see God’s intentions for us others around us do. The term “seer” is often used in this way and particularly with kings of Israel. So as I do not personally subscribe to the view that in this story that David was intended by God to take Saul’s life, it is worth consideration. If anyone would need counseling (a friend’s spiritual counsel) at a specific time or place in History, it would have been David at this time in his life. But we also don’t get God’s perspective on this story like we did in Job, so we are left to figure this out for ourselves. The beautiful mystery of the Bible!
My final point is that we, similar to the coronation of priests and kings in the Old Testament, all function as New Testament priests and kings and receive equal anointing. Christ is the ‘Anointed One’ and through His Spirit, we all have HIS anointing.
John 1:16 “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.”
1 Corinthians 6:17 “But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with Him in spirit.”
Romans 8:9b “And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.”
We all start with the same thing. From there it comes down to the circular relationship of the gifts and our reception to God’s plan in each of our lives. This is easily illustrated by the level of devotion to which we all live for Him. I have spoken about the reciprocal circle many times. God gives us the vessel and we choose our response to that gift. Will we be devout and submit to God in us or believe that we can operate in it ourselves by our own power?
Frank points out that there is a difference between operating on our own accord in the name of God and actually letting God operate in and out of us. This is the key to anointing.
I do not believe that anyone has simply “won the lottery” of chance from God in terms of a special force of anointing. It is also not something you can ‘lose’ (like you lose your car keys) either. If you are in Christ you have it… you might just not be operating in it or using it very well. I do believe that there is an order or perhaps algorithm to the way that the Kingdom of God aligns with the perfect will of the Father that can be influenced by us through devotion and spiritual maturity in Christ. As we develop (conform to the Image of Christ, renew our mind) we are given greater privileges and responsibilities for sure. This is the transformational ‘way’ (This Is The Way) that we should all be committed to.
Many claim to represent God or say they are for God, but they are likely operating in and of themselves. They are not fully submitted and living in devotion moving towards a complete indwelling of God in them. In one sense being ‘for’ God is a great thing, but it can also actually be a sign of infant spirituality; when we arrive at a place of being the vessel (horn) where God outpours from, we begin to understand spiritual maturity. Our actions become the hands and feet of God himself when we take on the submission and humility of simply being the vessel of the Almighty God. We are not just ‘for’ God, but God is literally IN us accomplishing His will His way.
We are dead to ourselves and made alive in Christ.
To be clear, anointing can bring about healing, it can signify a missional endeavor or calling, it can refer to the using of a gift given, but in all these things the central definition of anointing is to recognize and assert that the power is God Himself looks like taking on the attitude of Christ in you and not anything of yourself.
This is shepherded by devotion, practice, accountability, humility, and application towards spiritual maturity calling on the name and power of the Lord in you.
The presence of God at work.
-written by Dr. Will Ryan in collaboration of authorship with Dr. Steve Cassell
WORKS CITED:
Baynes, T. S., ed. (1878), “Anointing” , Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 2 (9th ed.), New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, p. 90
“Anoint” , Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 3d ed., London: T. Nelson & Sons, 1897
Thompson, Stephen E. (1994). “The Anointing of Officials in Ancient Egypt”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 53
Baynes, T. S., ed. (1878), “Anointing” , Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 2 (9th ed.), New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
Oxford English Dictionary, 1st ed. “chrism, n.” Oxford University Press (Oxford), 1889.
Fleming, Daniel (1998). “The Biblical Tradition of Anointing Priests”. Journal of Biblical Literature. 117 (3): 401–414. doi:10.2307/3266438.
Ferguson, Everett (2009). Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries.
Smith, Yancy (2013). The Mystery of Anointing. Gorgias. p. 30. ISBN 978-1463202187.
Origen, “Commentary on Romans”, 5.8.3.
Josephus, Antiquities 6, 8, 2 πρός τόν Δαυιδην
J. Pedersen, Israel, III/IV (1940, 1959), passim; P. deVaux, AIs (1961), 103-106; W. LaSor, “The Messianic Idea in Qumran,” Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman (1962), 343, 364.
we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:8
Many readers are familiar with the phrase stand and fight, perhaps because of James Taylor’s song, the popularity and adoption as an NRA phrase, or likely the multiple times in history the phrase has been used as a rally anthem. As I have never been very political, over the years I have become friends with and have grown to greatly love and respect the Johnson family. Mostly Barry, but also his brother, the Wisconsin Senator, Ron Johnson. I sent Barry a box with some expedition 44 gear in it and he returned the gift of grace reciprocally by sending me a box with some things in it. One of the gifts was a “stand and fight” hat signed by Ron with the message handwritten to me, “stay in the fight”. You might remember this hat as I wore it in the expedition 44 video episode 11 in the church series with Dr. Matt Mouzakis and Dr. Steve Cassell where I switched hats back and forth as we discussed nationalism in contrast with citizenship in the kingdom of God. Part of my DNA (right or wrong) has always been that there is a time to stand and fight and there is a time or season to simply be quiet and be at peace, very much in the spirit of Ecclesiastes 3.
Unfortunately, many of the times in life we find ourselves fighting, it is often with the ones we love the most. Mr. Rogers once said, 1.
“It’s the people we love the most who can make us feel the gladdest … and the maddest! Love and anger are such a puzzle!”
It has always been sad to me how many people simply part ways because they can’t work through something, yet at the same time I think we can all relate. I dream of a community in Jesus where that isn’t the case.
We have all loved something that wasn’t easy and had to decide whether to fight or walk away, to most this is perhaps the ongoing struggle of life. I have never been the slightest bit suicidal but earlier this year something took place in our close family circle that made me start devoting thought and prayer to this illness of the world. I took on very much a mentality of prayerful “intercessory fighting” against the spirits of this stronghold as I “stood in the gap.” In 2020 Christian artist, TobyMac wrote a song titled “21 Years” to honor Truett Foster McKeehan, his 21-year-old. In an Interview with People Magazine he said,
“Writing this song felt like an honest confession of the questions, pain, anger, doubt, mercy and promise that describes the journey I’m probably only beginning. One thing I know is that I am not alone. God didn’t promise us a life of no pain or even tragic death, but He did promise He would never leave us or forsake us. And I’m holding dearly to that promise for my son as well as myself.”
I love the transparency Toby has in this song (as a father of 4 boys it is very difficult for me to listen to though), but I have found that being utterly transparent with people is unfortunately often met with a lack of people’s desire to understand the true intentions of your heart and meet you with a spirit of edification seeing your desire to move towards a greater love. When we fail as the body of Christ in this way it leaves a feeling of emptiness and desire to want to escape rather than invest.
Definition of Absent – 3. “The fantasy of escape from the struggle of existence must be deeply addressed if one is to find the vital center of one’s being.”
This year, perhaps for the first time in life, I “understood” why someone might make such a tragic decision as suicide. I don’t agree with it or think it is what God wants in any way, but I understood the conviction. You often hear things like, “I just want it to be over,” or “I’m so tired.” These words convey the idea of deep exhaustion. That dreadful feeling of running out of options, or simply longing to end the never-ending fight.
As you likely know, I have learned a great deal studying Ancient Near East (ANE) culture and specifically Hebraic life and thought. In Hebrew one of the words for walk is “halak” (connected to the primary root of being created to praise which is halal) and has become metaphoric or idiomatic for walking with the Lord. One of my best friends has this tattoo on his arm which embodies the idiom of taking every step, heart, mind, and intellect in devotion to the Lord. In traditional Judaism, -4 “halakhic man prefers the real world to a transcendental existence because here, in this world, man is given the opportunity to create, act, accomplish, while there, in the world to come, he is powerless to change anything at all.”
Escapism has never been my thing. I don’t see Christ coming back in a grand disappearing act of rapture, and I believe most of scripture was primarily written in application to people to live out the here and now. Of course, there may be a secondary message in some texts with an “already not yet” sense to it, but the primary message to the original audience that can in most cases be somewhat adapted for us (as a recipient of reading the narrative) should be theologically considered a mere aspect of hope eschatologically. We were created first and foremost for this life. To be honest, the great majority of unbiased theologians and I can’t for sure say what the eschatological recreated Heaven and Earth will look like. We just weren’t given those cards in the playbook we have, just mere glimpses of what it could be.
However, I do know one thing. The Exodus motif is strong in the story. We are all on, or at least should be on a road of great redemption. Our hope, or trust, or driving force should be one of freedom, healing, and peace on our personal path of sanctification. God desires that we walk as redeemed sons and daughters in Joy. How do you know when to hang on and when to just simply let go?
Remember the famous line from M. Scott Peck, “Life is difficult,” perhaps he was just quoting John 16:33. If we are walking well, we are guaranteed tribulation, but also joy. Sometimes we wonder if we will ever get to the joy part. What does God have for me? Am I living my best life, or did I miss that bus? What has gotten in the way, perhaps pride, the world, intentions not recognized, a lack of edification of the body, or just simply the enemy seeking to destroy.
There is no doubt if you are doing it well, you are an alien to and in the situation you are in. Sometimes this is in the company of those you thought were “your people.” In Hebrew there is a phrase, that says our role is to bring about tikkun ‘olam, healing here—little by little, that become ripples across the galaxy, perhaps a spec of sand on a beach. Maybe before the Lord we shouldn’t have expectations for any more than this. And my friend Skip would say, “when heaven arrives on earth, we’ll still be here, enjoying the reality of the ideal, having never left to find peace someplace else.”
There may be a time to stand and fight, I haven’t got the answer for you on that one. But I do know that Jesus embodied peace, self-sacrifice, grace, and reconciliation of all things taking on the power under not over. It’s an upside down kingdom.
I typically lean towards the views that have been held the longest, but more so want to go after total truth. I am not particularly tied into any system within the world or theology. I’m not into denominations or camps. I simply want to follow what the Bible says. My goal is and always has been to determine the best Biblical view according to the whole lens of the Bible. I am seeking to lead people to the truth. I care little for anything other than what the Bible says, although a well-built firearm also puts a smile on my face!
GOALS OF THIS ARTICLE:
To consider a better “Jesus” perspective considering the war-torn conflicts of the world.
To be more educated about Biblical Israel vs Modern Israel.
To understand and Identify Zionism and Dispensational Theology.
To begin to construct a better theology concerning the Kingdom of Jesus and how you pray about and interact with others in regard to these issues.
OUTLINE OF THIS ARTICLE:
INTRODUCTORY THOUGHTS
DISPENSATIONALISM AND HOW IT RELATES TO ISRAEL
BIBLICAL ISRAEL
TIMELINE OF ISRAEL
MODERN ISRAEL
CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS
This article is a 30-minute read.
INTRODUCTION
Before I dive into this article, I want to give a basic context to the direction and why I have decided to devote a good deal of my time here. In my opinion, Steve Gregg of the Narrow Path is one of the leading Christian voices on Israel and dispensationalism. Most of what he says is very difficult to give credit to because it is in audio format primarily. That is one of the reasons why I have decided to keep this article on the less scholarly side. But that being said, I want to give credit where credit is due and consider him to personally be the best Christian voice on this subject matter.
I am in no way anti-Israel or anti-Palestine (for that matter) as I am not anti-American in any way. (For the record, I have both American and Israeli flags in my workshop, but don’t read too much into that.) There is good and bad in every nation, Christian and non-Christian, everywhere you look. Just because something started off wrong doesn’t mean it can’t be reconciled. Isn’t that what we are doing as Christians? You can’t judge everyone by the acts of a few good or bad people or even likely by the history of that nation or entity. To be clear, I have no tolerance for evil on any side and it seems like there are a lot of atrocities happening in our world right now that are pure evil, but most of the people involved are victims and that breaks my heart. I am for the kingdom of Jesus in every way with an unwavering sole conviction to that state of living. My faithful pledge isn’t to any of the worldly systems or nations, just Jesus. I am thankful that the political landscape of America allows me to worship Jesus.
Many talk about Israel and the end times as if we have been given a map in the Bible. As if in this road map we should be looking for directional signs that point to rapture, tribulation, and an earthly return to Israel. These point us to the culmination, where God reunites with the nation of Israel to rule the world. Most of us grew up indoctrinated into this kind of thinking. With the recent war in the Ukraine and now Israel, many have asked me for my thoughts. There are several conservative scholars who think similarly to what follows and if you are part of the Expedition 44 community you likely already know this. The good majority of evangelical theologians would hold to or support the sum of what I will present here. These thoughts and the theology represented aren’t specific to me and are not original to me.
I don’t know if we are living in the last days, or the end times; no one really does except the Lord. My theology doesn’t fear any kind of great tribulation. I live each day simply seeking to honor the King and live in joy and peace here and now contributing to the Kingdom through the gifts endowed to me, with some expectation for the return of the King and the ensuing kingdom to come whether it be in my lifetime or not.
No one knows the time or the hour of Jesus’ return. If I look at history, I would have thought everything was lined up in 70 AD for the return of Jesus and it didn’t happen. The biblical signs lined up much closer to that time than I would say they do now or any other time in history and that is why full preterism (which I do not subscribe to) wonders if Christ might have actually returned at that time and the rest of the world missed it (perhaps at Massada). This may surprise some of the readers here, but I don’t think any of the current events of our day biblically point to the end times in any way, and certainly not any more than we have witnessed in past history at multiple times already. Nearly every generation since Jesus walked this earth have thought that they were living in the last days. Christ may come back tomorrow or in another 2000 years or more. We simply don’t know the time or the hour and to try to continually figure this out is most accurately described in the Bible as divination, which we are regularly warned against. Expedition 44 has a 13-part series on eschatology if you want to dive in deeper on this subject.
In 586 BC Yahweh (the best name for the God of Israel) handed over Israel to their own desires which resulted in judgment and brought exile and the diaspora (spreading of the people of Israel) which continued through 70 AD when Rome destroyed Jerusalem and continued to spread Jews all over the world into modern history. Since 136 AD the land around what we refer to as modern-day Israel was simply called Palestine. It was a melting pot for those that originally came from the nations we read about in the Bible, not just Israel but many of the peoples that became intermixed. It was ruled or “owned” by several different entities for hundreds of years at a time. Today the people we refer to as Israeli are intermixed. There likely isn’t such a person as a pure covenant keeping Israelite since the generation of King Salomon. That was a result of the Israelites continually intermarrying against God’s command to not do that. Today you would be hard pressed, or I might even say, “it is impossible” to find a “Jew” that has not intermarried in their family heritage somewhere during the past 2000 years. In this “biological” sense there actually aren’t any pure Yahweh Covenant Israelites left. This gets even more complicated when you consider Jews under Yahweh were tied to Him by keeping the covenant and if they no longer kept the covenant than technically, they weren’t considered one of God’s chosen people anymore, although that notion is quite controversial. Historical-Biblical Israel represents the original nation that God called under His law that was supposed to be His primary “pure and undefiled” agents of regathering the world but is now extinct as a nation of God because of their sin. God handed them over to their desires and of their own choices they are no longer recognizable as the people of God. By this description they weren’t divorced or annihilated or anything else like that, they essentially just made decisions that eventually removed themselves from the idea of the original covenant of Yahweh with Israel. That however was not God’s intended plan for them. I will touch more on this later.
Modern Israel is a secular nation far from the nation of Israel that was established roughly 1500 years before Christ. The modern nation isn’t religious, and it certainly isn’t built on the law of Moses, nor does it take on any intrinsic commissioning from the Lord. Israel is a pluralistic society far from the nation of Biblical Israel of 3000 years ago. In fact, in the 1980’s there was a law in Israel that said anyone can join Israel unless you’re a Christian. In this sense Israel actually seems like a political anti-Jesus nation. The roughly 15,000 Christians in Jerusalem today, the majority of them Palestinians, were once 27,000 – before hardships that followed the 1967 war spurred many in the traditionally prosperous group to emigrate. Perhaps there is a Jesus fearing Jew in the land of modern Israel but as I will go on to show, they are theologically considered as “all of Israel” grafted into a family of new covenant Jesus followers and part of a redefined kingdom, the old Israel in a Biblical sense of land and calling is no longer what it once was by Biblical definition, A nation, they left that covenant generations ago. Much of God’s covenant was Israel was established in a communal (tribal) sense rather than a personal sense. Under the New Covenant there is still a sense of community with other believers but not necessarily in the same way that God’s chosen people Israel were charged under the law.
The Biblical mandate to Israel in Deuteronomy 7 that was a major part of the overall covenant said don’t intermarry (with people that worship other gods) or you will no longer be my people and the covenant will be broken; in the first few generations of Israel nearly all of them intermarried. Of course there were other parts of the covenant that were also broken. Today we are 50 generations later and there aren’t any, likely not one Jew, whose generational family hasn’t violated this very basic Hebraic law given by God to Moses in covenant to His chosen people, not to mention the other laws. In this sense there is no longer a covenant keeping Old Testament Israel by Biblical definition.
Israelites were always saved by covenant keeping devotion, not simply by their ethnic roots.
Even if there was a 3500+ generational covenant keeping family, their salvation is through the fact that they have kept the covenant, not that they are ethnic Israel. In this same sense, there is a new covenant or New Testament calling to “all Israel” as those that have chosen to walk in covenant with Jesus as the King of a sole kingdom. No one is automatically grafted in; you have to make an allegiant decision to be part of the Jesus kingdom and the new covenant. This has actually been the case in both the Old Testament and the New Testament alike. Some say that God’s blessings are perpetual for the Jews, and I might agree, but if you are going to hold to that reasoning, you also have to hold to generational curses. You can’t select one without the other.
The problem of Dispensationalism
I grew up hearing that everything is about Israel. The last days will come, and God’s people will be Israel so we better be aligned with them. There are two views that have influenced this way of thinking. One is called Zionism and the other is called Dispensationalism. Both are “theologies” of man. Unfortunately, nearly all of us grew up thinking that Zionist or dispensationalist ideologies were biblical without thinking much about it.
The term “Zionism” is derived from the word Zion a hill in Jerusalem, widely symbolizing the Land of Israel. Throughout eastern Europe in the late 19th century, numerous grassroots groups promoted the national resettlement of the Jews in their ancient homeland, as well as the revitalization and cultivation of the Hebrew language. These groups were collectively called the “Lovers of Zion” and were seen as countering a growing Jewish movement toward assimilation. The first use of the term is attributed to the Austrian Nathan Birnbaum, founder of the Kadimah nationalist Jewish students’ movement; he used the term in 1890 in his journal Selbst-Emancipation (Self-Emancipation), itself named almost identically to Leon Pinsker’s 1882 book Auto-Emancipation.
Dispensationalism is a theological framework of interpreting the Bible which maintains that history is divided into multiple ages or “dispensations” in which God acts with his people in different ways. The term “dispensationalism” is attributed to Philip Mauro, a critic of the system’s teachings in his 1928 book The Gospel of the Kingdom. Dispensationalists believe that there is a distinction between Israel and the rest of the Church. They maintain beliefs in premillennialism, a future restoration of national Israel, and a rapture of the Church that will happen before the Second Coming of Christ, generally seen as happening before a period of tribulation. Dispensationalism was systematized and promoted by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the mid-19th century. Dispensationalism began its spread in the United States during the late 19th century through the efforts of evangelists like James Inglis, James Hall Brookes, Dwight L. Moody, the efforts of the Niagara Bible Conference, and the establishment of Bible Institutes. With the dawn of the 20th century, C. I. Scofield introduced the Scofield Reference Bible, which solidified dispensationalism in the United States. Dispensationalism is commonly found in nondenominational Bible churches, Baptists, Pentecostal, and charismatic groups.
You are likely not familiar with these definitions or names and have also just assumed much of what you hear about Israel and the end times to be true or Biblical. You probably don’t realize that if you believe some of these things (or tenets of their theology) that you are falling into a newer (1830’s Darby) view of theology. William Blackwell who was the father of Zionism was a dispensational preacher. They would tell you that God is always on the side of Israel as a nation but gave very little exegetical evidence to think this way.
You are probably familiar with the terms pre tribulation, mid tribulation, and post tribulation. Whether you realize it or not, these are tenets of dispensationalism. They aren’t really in the Bible; they are definitions that men made up in the last 200 years to describe the end times and a bunch of other presuppositions based on a “loose” interpretation of Scripture. All of this is a biblical presupposition, no one thought these ways of thinking were theologically sound or a valid theological option of good exegesis before the last 200 years. Out of the various differing and confusing options within dispensationalism, pre tribulation has been the most common view, and I grew up hearing that the great disappearing act (otherwise known as the rapture) would happen and there is then seven years after that of great tribulation and Israel will work exclusively with God as a nation again and that will give way to a 1000-year millennium period where God works again through a reinstated nation of Israel. The temple will be rebuilt, animal sacrifices in the temple will begin again, and the Levitical priesthood will be re-established. But just stop for a moment and consider that. Aren’t those messages actually anti Jesus?* We are the temple of the Holy Spirit, to wish another temple to be built would be working against what God has already established. We don’t need any more sacrifices. Hebrews makes it very clear Jesus was the final and complete sacrifice. Anyone who believes is part of the new covenant priesthood. All those things are anti, or against what the Bible says the new covenant is, and that is just naming a few of the tenets of dispensationalism.
*NOTE: 1 Cor 3:16-17, 1 Cor 6:15-20, 2 Cor 6:14-18, Eph 2:19-22, 1 Pet 2:5, Jesus Himself in John 2:19 (quoted by the Jews, His enemies, in Mark 14:58 when they were trying to legally prosecute Him). It is further verified that in Rev 21:22 John specifically said there was NO TEMPLE)
But you can see why a dispensationalist would be pushing for Israel to be a nation again as they believe all these things are a checklist to happen before Jesus returns. Where did they get these ideas from? To be honest I don’t know. When you try to find them anywhere in the Bible, especially in Revelation it requires a pretty vivid imagination and a complete departure from sound exegesis and hermeneutics.
Dispensationalists believe that Daniel talked about 490 years to deal with Israel (which I agree with). 483 years gets you to the triumphal entry. If you are a dispensational, you believe that the clock stopped for some reason right then, and the last seven years will restart at the rapture. Now I will say, that doesn’t seem to fit any hermeneutic I am familiar with. Thinking this way seems very much like trying to bend Scripture to say what you want it to say. I don’t see any merit exegetically for just deciding that the clock is going to miraculously stop and restart when the church is raptured. I also might add here that I graduated from Moody Bible Institute which (as mentioned above) is the leading dispensational school in the world. I spent four years studying under the best dispensational teachers and left scratching my head in confusion upon graduation.
I don’t believe the 490-year clock stopped. That doesn’t really make any sense. If you want to see what the Bible says in regard to the 490 years here is a video explaining everything from a more Biblical perspective.
I won’t deny that there has been a fascination in the church with all things Israel. Most Christians I know think that we should support Israel as if they are currently still a nation ruled directly by God.
Every verse that is quoted that describes the nation of Israel as God’s people is an Old Testament verse. Romans 9-11 uses a term “all Israel” which is talking about the new covenant of all believers, the Olive Tree of Jeremiah 11 and Romans 11. The context of all of Romans for salvation is to those that believe in Jesus. Those under the new covenant and the kingdom of Jesus will be saved. That’s it, and the Bible makes this very clear. No one is going to be saved that doesn’t profess a complete trust and/or display allegiance to Jesus. Salvation comes to those that place their obedient faith and live a life dedicated to the following of Jesus.
What about prophecy? There are a lot of predictions in the Old Testament that say things like God will re-establish Israel as a nation. That is true, but this happened after the Babylonian Exile. In 586 BC Nebuchadnezzar destroyed their temple and dispersed the Jews and years later in 439 BC the Jews returned to their land fulfilling all of these prophetic scriptures and this continued through Ezra and Nehemiah with the returning of exiles. That is when all of these scriptures were fulfilled CLEARLY. That is all the prediction we get in the Bible. There isn’t anything anywhere about a later return of Israel to their physical land.
Now I can see why you might be confused, because Israel does return to the land promised to them as you know. In 1948 Israel returns to their ancient land to re-establish itself as a nation. Is that a foreshadow or double fulfillment? Well, the Bible doesn’t ever say this. You would have to generate or make this up to get there. It is only a foreshadow if the New Testament identifies this. There isn’t anywhere in the New Testament that does this with a nation re-forming of Israel. The Bible never gives us that. This may surprise you, but I challenge you to find any verses that say that. You think it says this because dispensationalism in our generation has been so grafted into most church theology (or lack of), but the Bible doesn’t say this. It is all based on man’s elaborate imagination of what they want the Bible to say, it’s a man-made narrative with a Zionist national agenda. I usually refer to this kind of theology as a sign of man engineering what we want the Bible to communicate.
This article really isn’t on the problems of Dispensationalism but many of them tie into the conversation of how we view Israel today. There are lots of Expedition 44 articles that deal with the problems of dispensationalism but not necessarily a dedicated article, yet. In the meantime, this is one of the best recent videos on the subject by Steve Gregg.
HISTORICAL – BIBLICAL ISRAEL:
The first hint of a nation dedicated to God is in the Abrahamic promise to bless all nations which eventually comes to fruition by the seed of his family in several turns of events in and through Christ (Galatians 3:16). But when you think of Israel you usually think about the story several generations later of Moses rescuing this melting pot of people who were slaves in Egypt and establishing a nation in them as a Theocratic kingdom under God.
When I say melting pot, I mean that it started as a mixed group of people. This is also likely different than what you have always thought of Israel. We often think of the Israelites as pure descendants of Abraham, but we get the hint that this is less ethnic than covenant related. For example, Exodus 12:38 states that when Israel left Egypt that, “a mixed multitude went up with them.” Yahweh selected the Hebrews to be His representatives on earth, but He was never to be the God of only the descendants of Abraham. The plan was to reclaim the mixed peoples of the earth through Abraham’s descendants and those that joined the covenant. He wanted all peoples to know Him through Israel. This mixed multitude crossed the Red Sea, heard the voice of God at Sinai and sojourned in the wilderness for 40 years with Israel. In God’s covenant with Abraham He told Him that through Abraham that “all the nations of the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 18:18). The Exodus is the beginning of that fulfillment. God teaches that when gentiles believe in Him and obey Him that they “shall be like a native of the land” (Exodus 12:48). This principle repeated in Leviticus 19:34 and Ezekiel 47:22 and throughout the Old Testament we see a few pictures of gentiles entering into Covenant through the nation of Israel to Yahweh. What made you part of the Israelite family was your allegiant agreement to follow the precepts of Yahweh in covenant faithfulness. A sign of covenant faithfulness in the Old Testament was circumcision. Likewise, when Jesus instituted the New Covenant there was a similar sign of faithfulness indicated by baptism. Neither physical action necessarily saved you.
As you may be figuring out, in the end, as so much of the New Testament would say, there is no difference between Jew and gentile. What makes us part of the body is the same as it was in the Old Testament, which is covenant faithfulness. The law was needed as a stop gap until the Messiah could offer what was needed once and for all in the atonement offering a complete covenant with eternal promise.
In Exodus 19 God says to these people:
5 “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. ‘Although the whole earth is mine,6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
I often hear people talk about covenants. I have spent a lot of time and written books on covenant promises and although some theologians divide these promises into what they describe as conditional or unconditional covenants (and I agree with the basic reasoning), I am going to say that all covenants have some element of mutual understanding and agreement. In the verse above you see the first phrase being “IF YOU OBEY ME FULLY.” Does this sound reciprocal to you? Does this sound like it describes a relationship of circular expectation? Why would you read this any other way? God says to Israel if you keep my law, you will be my people – and how long did it take for them to fail at this? About 2 weeks. Within 2 weeks they didn’t do their part and what was God’s reaction with Moses? He says the people are unfaithful and he wants to destroy them and start over with Moses in Exodus 32. Yet what follows is one of the most amazing passages in the Bible of God listening to and acting on a prayerful plea. Yahweh is actually swayed by the heart of Moses as Moses pleas with Yahweh and changes God’s mind. Yahweh doesn’t destroy them, but eventually (hundreds of years later) will hand them over to their own desires. They choose to replace God with human rulers called kings. They continually break covenant with God by intermarrying, worshipping other gods, and not living according to the law given to them. They are described as an adulterous nation before the Lord. Eventually the Jews (Israel) are the ones that put His son Jesus on the cross as a final picture of completely rejecting God,
When Jesus is raised from the dead, ascended and sits at the right hand of the father sending His spirit back to the church, the New Covenant is established for all who believe, both Jews and gentiles. Which, as your probably realizing, was the plan from the beginning. The plan from the start with Abraham was to reclaim all who would believe to be saved and join a kingdom of God separate from the kingdoms of the world. The plan to reclaim the world would start with God working through Israel as His reclaiming ambassadors but when they so visibly failed God, the plan turned from Israel as part of the reclaiming plan to simply anyone who believed in Jesus as the Messiah to be the primary representatives of this reclaiming nation. This is described as ALL OF ISRAEL in Romans 9-11 and is simply all who allegiantly live by the name Jesus. This is described as the faithful remnant of those who follow Jesus. There is nothing in my Bible in the New Testament about any worldly nation that God is going to use. The only nation is the spiritual sense of the Jesus Kingdom. America will never be God’s kingdom and modern Israel will not be that nation, or at least the Bible doesn’t give us that (it could happen, anything could happen – but we aren’t told that it will in scripture.). Perhaps you may share a notion of dual citizenship, but as a Christ follower your primary allegiance should be to the Kingdom of Jesus and not the systems of the world.
I should also mention that there is merit to the consideration of unconditional covenants. As you have already sensed, I am hesitant here because I believe all covenants are circular in some way. But it is worth noting that in the case of land the promise was fulfilled to Israel. The land was given to them regardless of whether they were obedient in driving out the Canaanites or obeying the rest of God’s commands in regard to it. God still gave them the land; they simply went on to lose it. There is no other prophecy for the land to be given back to them after it was lost.
There is no promise that says God will continue to win back the physical land for the nation of Israel in generations to come as so many people seem to think God will do. The land was given once and then lost. God doesn’t promise to win and back and keep giving it to Israel over and over again for thousands of years. The promise was that if they were covenant keepers, they would remain His nation. The main verse that someone might cite to argue this statement would be Genesis 17:8, “I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojourning, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” The intent was that God’s people would keep the covenant and become the greatest physical nation on earth. But due to their unfaithfulness that never happened. But I admit, there are a couple of options for interpretation here. At first the plainly read consideration is to think that physical land of Canaan will be promised to Abraham’s descendants in a literal sense of the term forever. Well, you can do that, and I am fine with this interpretation in a human literal sense, but you have to keep it literal. I can give you ownership of something that is intended to be forever, but you might still lose it. We see this with generational inheritance all the time. Wills are written that the family farm might be passed on to the family “forever”, but we all know eventually someone sells it. But perhaps the intention of the text is more eternal. In Hebrew the word eternal (olam) natively describes God or what He enables in an eschatological sense. In this way nothing is truly eternal except God. This statement is an “eternal land promise” which ties in with the New Testament Kingdom in verses such as Heb 11:10, 13, 16, 38-40 and not a physical territory next to the Mediterranean Sea.
The eternal aspect of God’s promised land designates a place where He and His people would meet forever. Perhaps, God birthed this promise from the ashes of His original hopes for the Garden of Eden. When the Psalmist retold the statement, “Oh let Israel say, “His lovingkindness is everlasting,” (Psalm 118:2), was he thinking of a place where God would forever dwell with His people? It seems rather clear that we are to relate the everlasting possession with the New Testament promises of eternal life; the two forged into one thought and future. Jesus spoke clearly of the eternal state. The Jewish believers no doubt attached this promise of eternal life with God’s promise to Abraham’s descendants. Jesus often used Abrahamic language to speak of eternal things: “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth there when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being cast out” (Luke 13:28).
While I am on the subject of the land it is also worth noting that people were invited to the promised land after they declared their allegiance to Yahweh. It was connected to that covenant. Currently, in the land we refer to as national Israel, less than 2% (some statistics indicate far less than this) of the population confesses an allegiant belief in Jesus as the Messiah. In both percentage and overall numbers, there are more confessing Christians residing in Palestine than in Israel. By the end of this article, you may find that these truths will expand, or change, your prayers about who you think God is supporting in this war.
This is going to start to sound like a broken record, but it is a crucial point, there is never a time when Israel was an ethnic designation. They started as a mixed multitude out of Egypt. The ability to be part of God’s plan was always given to those that were willing to live by covenant. The nation was defined then and today by those who keep the covenant. The Jew who rejects the covenant is cut off from the kingdom.
Hebrews 8:13 clearly establishes the new covenant to be those that hold to a new covenant. If you don’t keep the covenant you aren’t part of the Kingdom of God. If you aren’t faithful to Jesus, you aren’t faithful to God. It has nothing to do with a physical race or even the physical land anymore. The new covenant didn’t re-establish land. Quite the opposite. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. The new Kingdom of Jesus is promised land only in an eschatological sense of the recreated heavens and earth. We may reclaim “land” (such as something we own rededicated to the Lord) to some extent declaring it is holy, but we don’t get any idea of this in the Bible directed towards any kind of political entity or kingdom of land. It may happen, and I pray that perhaps it will, but the Bible doesn’t say this will happen. This is because Israel defiled the land that was given to them and because God is holy, He no longer desired the land that was defiled. The plan needed to be adapted and it was adapted by God and called the New Covenant. The old land became an atrocity to the Lord and a new Earth is being created.
TIMELINE CONCERNING ISRAEL:
In order to truly understand modern Israel, it is important to first consider their history. Here is a brief timeline of the nation and lands of Israel and Palestine.
1600 BCE Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob –settle in the Land that God had given them but eventually the tribes of Israel go down to Egypt because of a severe famine in the Land of Israel and become enslaved by Egypt.
1200 BCE The Exodus of a mixed peoples from Egypt that return to the land of their father Abraham under a theocracy of Yahweh. Unfortunately, they immediately turn from Yahweh and worship other gods which begins their covenant unfaithfulness.
1020 BCE The Kingdom of Israel is established under Yahweh; but then Israel chooses an earthly King instead of Theocracy. They choose to be ruled by an earthly king in place of direct rule by God.
1000 BCE Jerusalem becomes the capital of the Kingdom of Israel under King David in effort to return the nation to Yahweh.
960 BCE The First Temple is built, a spiritual center of the people in an attempt to return rule to God, but the people continue to deny Yahweh and follow other God’s and nations.
722-720 BCE God begins to hand over the people of Israel to their own desires which results in judgment and the Kingdom of Israel that is located in the northern Land of Israel is conquered by Assyria; ten tribes go into exile.
586 BCE God hands over the rest of Israel as the Kingdom of Judah is conquered by Babylonia; Jerusalem and the Temple are laid waste; the Jews are exiled to Babylonia starting the Diaspora.
538-515 BCE Yahweh gives Israel another chance by sending the remnant and initializing the return to Zion after the proclamation of Cyrus – some Jews return from Babylon; the Temple is rebuilt but only a remnant seems to desire to return to Yahweh and live in covenant faithfulness. This fulfills nearly every scriptural prophecy of restoration to Israel.
332 BCE The Land of Israel is conquered by Alexander the Great turning towards Hellenistic rule.
166-160 BCE The Hasmonean Revolt against the Greek Empire in reaction to the constraints imposed on Jewish religious practice.
129-63 BCE Jewish political independence under the Hasmonean Kingdom.
63 BCE to 4 CE King Herod rules in the Land of Israel; the temple is expanded but becomes very political and some would say the Spirit of Yahweh never returns to the temple.
33 Jesus is crucified and risen establishing the New Covenant and kingdom under the risen Saviour.
66 The Jews rebel against the Romans.
70 The destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple.
73 The Romans’ battle to conquer Masada,
136 The Romans change the name of Judea to Syria Palaestina and the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. “Palestine” is adapted as a melting pot of people that are deemed lesser than Romans occupying land that once was claimed by Israel.
638 -1517 The liberation of Jerusalem by a combined force of different peoples, Persians and Jews. The Dome of the Rock is built on the Temple Mount on the presumed location of the first and second temples. The land switches hands from Crusader, Mamluk, and Ottoman rule.
1897 The First Zionist Congress in Basel under the aegis of Binyamin Ze’ev Herzl.
May 16, 1916 The Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and Britain over the Palestine area gives way to the November 2, 1917 The Balfour Declaration – a document signed by British foreign minister Lord Arthur James Balfour (dispensational Christian), which espouses a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.
January 3, 1919 The Faisal-Weizmann agreement between Chaim Weizmann and Emir Faisal – an agreement that establishes both Arabs and the Jews in the Land of Israel. In reaction, the April 25, 1920 San Remo Agreement gave Britain rule over the land of Israel and controversially ratified former agreement.
May 1-7, 1921-1929 Arab riots in Jaffa, Petah Tikva, Rehovot, Hadera, and elsewhere, in which 43 people were killed. The riots were spurred by the Arab national awakening and the demand to annul the Balfour Declaration. August 23, 1929 Riots in Hebron, Jerusalem, and Safed. Arabs murder 133 Jews.
July 7, 1937 The Peel Commission – the partition resolution is accepted by the British administration, en-Gurion, and the Zionist institutions, and is rejected by the Arabs.
March 22, 1945 The establishment of the Arab League with Cairo as its hub.
November 29, 1947 Approval of the partition plan by the General Assembly of the United Nations – Resolution 181.
November 29, 1947 to July 20, 1949 The War of Independence; from May 15 to June 11 – the regular Arab armies’ invasion of the Land of Israel. 6000 Jews were killed during the war.
February 24, 1949 to July 20, 1949 Armistice agreements (Rhodes agreements).
March 23 – Lebanon, April 3 – Jordan, July 20 – Syria 1948 (until 1967) Jerusalem is divided between Israel and Jordan along the armistice lines: Jordan holds the eastern part of the city, Israel the western and southern parts. Jews are denied access to the Old City and the holy places in contravention of the armistice agreement.
1949 Massive aliyah to Israel from Arab states and North Africa, and of displaced Jews from Europe. The Jewish population doubles from 650,000 to 1,300,000.
May 11, 1949 Israel is accepted as the 59th member of the United Nations.
December 5, 1949 Jerusalem is declared the capital of Israel by David Ben-Gurion.
June 5, 1967 to June 10, 1967 The Six-Day War between Israel and Arab states: Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq.
September 1, 1967 Meeting of the Arab League in Khartoum, which laid down the “three no’s”: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.
November 22, 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242 calls for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, Israeli withdrawal from lands it conquered in the Six-Day War, a solution to the refugee problem, and the guaranteeing of free passage for ships through international lanes.
November 10, 1975 UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, which equates Zionism with racism.
December 16, 1991 The UN General Assembly revokes Resolution 3379 (that equates Zionism with racism).
October 26, 1994 The signing of the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty.
September 28, 1995 The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
May 2, 2002 Establishment of the Middle East Quartet (the Quartet) – the European Union (EU), United States, United Nations, and Russia
April 14, 2004 Letter from President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stating that it is unrealistic to expect “a full and complete withdrawal to the armistice lines of 1949” – the letter reiterates U.S. commitment to “defensible borders” for Israel.
August 20, 2010 The invitation of Israel and the Palestinians to face-to-face negotiations by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
May 4, 2011 A reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas in Cairo.
May 24, 2011 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears before both houses of the U.S. Congress, explaining that “Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.”
September 23, 2011 The submission to the UN secretary-general of a request by the Palestinian Authority that Palestine be recognized as a UN member state.
The International recognition of the State of Palestine has been the objective of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since the Palestinian Declaration of Independence on 15 November. By the end of the year, the proclaimed Palestinian state was recognized by over 78 countries. As of 31 July 2019, 138 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states and two non-member states have recognized it (Israel is recognized by 165). Palestine also has been a non-member observer state of the UN General Assembly since the passing of United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 in November 2012.
As a Christian how do you view the control of land through war? For instance, the majority of those reading this article are Americans. The United States has acquired new territories through war, cession, purchase, and occupation. Most of land throughout history has been acquired by nations through war. How do you view land dominion and ownership from a worldly sense of justice based on what the Bible says? Let’s specifically consider the geography that God once gave to Israel as the promised land.
The region of Palestine has been controlled by a mixed group of Arabs (for lack of better word) for at least 1300 years and perhaps even the last 2000 years since 70AD. The Jews actually haven’t had singular rule of the land referred to as Palestine and/or Israel for thousands of years. They lost the land. Lands are inhabited or conquered and even though a country may have roots from hundreds or even thousands of years before, the land wouldn’t any longer be considered “theirs” by any modern measure.
For Instance, Great Britain once clearly owned the land the US inhabits now. A war was waged and what resulted was the claim that a new country would be born, the United States. But even now, England technically has owned it longer than the US has, would that mean they still have some kind of rightful claim to it? After the war for Independence and establishing of a new nation in 1776 the US wanted more land and in the name of westward expansion, (amongst other purchases and deals) they fought Mexico and the Indians and took the land they wanted through war. In the French and Indian War (1754–63), America fought between France and Great Britain primarily to gain land. It determined control of the vast colonial territory of North America. American imperialism is the expansion of American political, economic, cultural, media and military influencing the boundaries of the United States. Depending on the commentator, it may include imperialism through outright military conquest; gunboat diplomacy; unequal treaties; subsidization of preferred factions; regime change; or economic penetration through private companies, potentially followed by diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened. As a Christian looking back on American History, this notion can be surprising or even upsetting, but these decisions weren’t specifically ours, rather they have been handed down to us. Today the US clearly says that it has claim to or owns this land, yet many will say that it wasn’t really ours to take. Much of the rest of the world doesn’t view American Imperialism much different than the rest of the empirical pursuits of the world history that were usually fueled by war and bloodshed. What if the Mexicans and the Indians want their land back, they owned it longer than we have and may have a legitimate claim to it. Can they establish a rightful claim to it? You have to think this way to justify Israel’s claim on the land in Palestine.
In this case Britain told the Jews they could have the land that was occupied by the Arab Palestinians and Jews. How would you feel if someone else said you no longer owned your home or land and told you that it has been given to someone else? You and I as Americans thinks this sounds preposterous yet that is what happened to those that occupied the land of Israel and Palestine and to an extent what we have done in America. There are peoples whose land was simply taken or given away.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, an organized religious and political movement known as Zionism (that I described at the beginning of this article) emerged among Jews. Zionists wanted to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Massive numbers of Jews immigrated to the ancient holy land and built settlements. Between 1882 and 1903, about 35,000 Jews relocated to Palestine. Another 40,000 settled in the area between 1904 and 1914. The problem was they were moving into a land that they wanted to claim, yet it hadn’t been theirs for at least 1300 years.
Many Jews living in Europe and elsewhere, fearing persecution during the Nazi reign, found refuge in Palestine and embraced Zionism. After the Holocaust and World War II ended, members of the Zionist movement primarily focused on creating an independent Jewish state. As you can imagine after the WWI and WWII there were a lot of Jewish sympathizers and perhaps there should have been! The problem became that Arabs in Palestine who had lived there for hundreds of years naturally resisted the Zionism movement, and tensions between the two groups continued. An Arab nationalist movement developed as a result.
In 1917 Balfour who was a British Christian Dispensationalist sought to begin establishing Israel as a nation which was part the Zionist movement. The Balfour Declaration and the British mandate over Palestine were approved by the League of Nations in 1922. Arabs vehemently opposed the Balfour Declaration, concerned that a Jewish homeland would mean the subjugation of Arab Palestinians. It didn’t seem “fair.” As I mentioned earlier; it doesn’t seem “just” that some would simply be told that their land and homes are no longer theirs.
The question a Christian needs to address is what does justice look like from the eyes of God? America went to war to win land, why would you view the Israel or the Palestinians trying to win land any differently? What about when women and children are killed? Is Israel any better in the eyes of God than their rivals?
According to USA TODAY, “The Hamas are the Islamic Resistance Movement political and military organization governing the Gaza Strip of the Palestinian territories. Headquartered in Gaza City, it also has a presence in the West Bank (the larger of the two Palestinian territories), in which its secular rival Fatah exercises control. Hamas is widely considered to be the “dominant political force” within the Palestinian territories. Hamas’ political wing has controlled the Gaza Strip for over a decade, but the group is most known for its many suicide bombings and other attacks on Israel amid the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has lasted decades. It’s considered a terrorist group by the United States and other nations. Hamas – an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya, or Islamic resistance movement – was founded in 1987 during the first Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by a Palestinian activist connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.” You might also consider how, as a Christian, you might view this group.
The British controlled Palestine until Israel became an independent state in 1947 after World War II. The United Nations approved a plan to partition Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state in 1947, but the Arabs rejected it (right or wrong.)
In May 1948, Israel was officially declared an independent state with David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, as the prime minister. While this historic event seemed to be a victory for Jews, it also marked the beginning of more violence with the Arabs.
Following the announcement of an independent Israel, five Arab nations—Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon—immediately invaded the region in what became known as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. This resulted in 7 months of war where Israel gained 77% of the land, not the 52% of the land they were supposed to have according to previous agreement. This resulted in 750,000 Palestinians becoming homeless refugees. As you can imagine, the Palestinians felt that Israel was acting against the armistice agreement and had stolen their land. Israel invited Jews from all over the world to move back to the newly acquired land and doubled their population (and army size) over the next three years. From an Israeli perspective, they were unlawfully invaded by Arab aggressors and rightfully gained land by military conquest, so their claims were justified based on modern definitions of land acquisition. But, as you can imagine, the Palestinians would see this differently.
Civil war broke out throughout all of Israel, but a cease-fire agreement was reached in 1949. As part of the temporary armistice agreement, the West Bank became part of Jordan, and the Gaza Strip became Egyptian territory. Numerous wars and acts of violence between Arabs and Jews have ensued since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War such as the Suez Canal, Six Day War, Yom Kippur War, the Lebanon War, First Palestinian Intifada, the Second Lebanon War, and Hamas Wars. Israel has been involved in repeated violence with Hamas, a Sunni Islamist militant group that assumed Palestinian power in 2006. Some of the more significant conflicts took place beginning in 2008, 2012, 2014, 2021 and 2023. Israel has basically been in and out of wars since they were recognized as a nation.
Clashes between Israelis and Arabs and/or Palestinians are commonplace. (As you can imagine it is difficult to identify all of the middle east groups and I am reluctant to group them or identify them together.) Key territories of land are divided, but some are claimed by several groups. For instance, both Palestine and Israel cite Jerusalem as their capital. Both groups blame each other for terror attacks that kill civilians. While Israel doesn’t officially recognize Palestine as a state, more than 135 UN member nations do. In October 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally declared war on Hamas following a surprise deadly assault launched from Gaza by Hamas militants.
You also might consider a morality/moral equivalency conversation here. After Hamas’s attack, is Israel obligated to agree to a cease-fire. Are they obligated to be certain that no civilians are killed and if civilians are killed, are they no better than Hamas? Is Israel’s occupation of the land the ultimate cause of all the killing? This article doesn’t necessarily warrant a conversation on biblical kingdom morality concerning defense but if you are considering all things in this war it needs to be considered.
When considering how a Jesus follower might view all of this conflict you may consider the religious affiliation of the Israeli population as of 2022 was 73.6% Jewish, 18.1% Muslim, 1.9% Christian, and 1.6% Druze. The remaining 4.8% included faiths such as Samaritanism and Baháʼí, as well as “religiously unclassified.”
OVERALL THOUGHTS & CONCLUSION:
As I started this article, I feel the need to re-emphasize my position. I am in no way anti-Israel or anti-Palestine (for that matter) as I am not anti-American in any way. I am anti-Hamas. There is good and bad in every nation, Christian and non, everywhere you look. Just because something started wrong, or off or grey, doesn’t mean it can’t be reconciled. Isn’t that what we are doing as Christians? You can’t judge everyone represented by the acts of a few people. To be clear I have no tolerance for evil on any side and it seems like there are a lot of atrocities going on that are pure evil, but most of the people involved are victims and that breaks my heart.
I certainly don’t agree with everything America (or any other nation) has done in their past (or make any concession to justify their current actions) but as a citizen of the nation of the United States I seek to do what I can to influence a broken system of peoples as I take on my kingdom role of representing or being an ambassador of the Kingdom of God (my primary consideration) and offer the healing power of Jesus. I will continue to model the beauty of this kingdom and offer consideration to anyone to join me in this obedient pursuit of Jesus and His beautiful plan that is captivated by loving God and others giving way to joy and healing even in the midst of tribulation both here and now which will eventually result in a recreated heaven and earth where all things are reconciled to Jesus.
As you probably know, I am for the kingdom of Jesus in every way with unwavering sole conviction to that state of living. My faithful pledge isn’t to any of the worldly systems or nations, just Jesus. I am glad that my political state of America allows me to worship Jesus but recognize that it isn’t promoting the kingdom of Jesus, but rather allows it. I have freedom to be a Jesus follower as well as be loyal to any other religion. As Christ followers we need to make sure that we are on Jesus’ side, not on the side of the rival nations of the world. We need to represent Biblical values, love, grace, peace, mercy, and justice, but understand it is God who ultimately rules and controls those powers throughout our world and the next. We represent the image of Jesus and invite others to join in a different kind of kingdom. We are the hands and feet of Jesus but ultimately all things will be reconciled by and to Him, perhaps much of this is out of our hands and we are simply asked to live within the New Covenant precepts the best we can wherever and however we can.
In terms of world politics and national strife, neither side, Israeli or Palestinian (Ukrainian or Russian) are nationally Christian. We tend to think of the Hamas as the worst entity involved and maybe they are or aren’t. Some of the acts of all of these groups have been detestable. There are likely Christians on every side as well as terrorists on all sides (they often call themselves freedom fighters because they are fighting for what was taken from them). As a Christian I can’t side with much of any of the violence. Even from a sense of justice it is the Lord’s not mine. I pray that being the hands and feet of Jesus doesn’t call my family into a war situation, but I am well aware that at some points of history this has been a decision by Christians that has had to be made. Perhaps we could decide to side with Israel as an American because America is in political alliance with them as long as the decisions don’t result in fruit that is against the Jesus kingdom. However, that statement seems impossible. This brings some other theological problematic concerns. Are we partnering with others out of the Jesus Kingdom? Many Christians would say that this is being unequally yoked. Should a Christian partner with the world?
Is God on Israels side? Throughout history Israel has denied God and specifically Jesus, far more than they have sided with Him. Statistically, America claims to be 70% Christian and Israel is less than 2% Christian, although I don’t feel as if America is very Christian living here. Perhaps these statistics aren’t comparing apples to apples though. I don’t see God aligning with the governments of America or modern national Israel. Israel seems to continue to be a rival to the kingdom of Jesus and for the most part I think America is heading in that direction as well. As Christians we pray to love our enemies and see them redeemed, so in this sense I urge you to pray for all of them.
Should we give any extra merit to a nation that once was Theocratic (thousands of years ago) but no longer is and clearly isn’t appealing to any sort of Christian following? I don’t think so. As Christians we need to align with those of the Jesus kingdom but at the same time pray to love our enemies and win them over to Jesus. Israel does claim as traditional Jews to worship the same God as Christians but as I have said earlier if you take Jesus out of the equation you’re out of the New Covenant and might even be against God if you can’t accept His Son as the Messiah.
There is no Biblical or “world” mandate for Israel laying claim to modern or ancient land. Nor does the Bible say that it is just for them to wage war to take it back. But the choices of these nations and others within the last century have perhaps made this complicated, just as there is no real rightful claim for land to be “claimed” by a Palestinian state or nation based on modern or ancient history either.
I do know one thing for sure, we can pray for the kingdom of Jesus and the world to be reconciled unto Him.
WIll Ryan Th.D.
SOURCES & NOTATION:
Special thanks to those that contributed to this article in a thought tank and red team review: Steve Gregg of the Narrow Path, Dr. Matt Mouzakis of X44, Nick Tenhagen, Dr. Steve Cassell, Pastor Steve Thorngate, Steve Bahr, Krista & Will Bensheimer, Jason Lee, and Josh Ruud. Please note that they do not necessarily share the views of the author and represent a very diverse mix of theological backgrounds.
The unity of the church is always on my mind. There seems to be more and more of the spirit of the world seeping into the body of Christ and the ways and attitudes of Babylon are taking root. There has been a movement of those who consider themselves defenders of the faith and discerners of the truth that ostracize and cast out those who don’t fit into their mold. I’ve noticed they have often failed to discern the attitudes and spirit of the world that they have aligned themselves with rather than walking in the Way of Christ by seeking to edify, build up, live in unity with diversity, and grow in Christ-formed maturity.
This week I’ve been reading through 3 John; it is a very small 15-verse letter in the back of our Bible that many of us probably have not given a ton of attention to (me included). It often doesn’t land on people’s favorite lists such as Romans, Philippians, or the Psalms. But this letter packs a punch in talking about unity through addressing attitudes of what John calls “evil” in the church. We have taught a series on the Seven Churches in Revelation and in that we saw that the major message from John there was regarding the ways of Babylon that have taken root in the churches in Asia Minor. Likewise, in 3 John, he writes about “evil”, in terms of worldly attitudes, that have seeped into the church.
John’s epistles were written to the churches in Ephesus. Church history tells us that John the Apostle was an elder here in his old age. In 3 John he is just called “the elder”. He was likely part of shepherding a network of house churches as well as other apostles and itinerant teachers. If you want our x44 take on what an elder is simply type elder into the search box to the right or search our Youtube channel. This sermon might also help.
In this letter there are 3 characters:
Gaius: Who is the recipient of the letter and likely an elder or leader at the church John is writing to.
Diotrephes: Who’s attitude is what the letter of 3 John is about. He was likely either an elder, leader, or teacher in this house church.
Demetrius: Likely a younger person in the church who is an example of walking in truth.
In this study we are going to look at the character of Diotrephes, specifically because I believe there’s some of his spirit in churches today. First, we need to look at how John contrasts his spirit against what John calls “walking in the truth”.
3 John 1-4
The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth. Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers. For I was very glad when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth. I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.
“Truth” is one of the central images in all of the Johannine writings (Gospel of John, 1-3 John, Revelation). Truth (aletheia) is used 45 times in these letters. The gospel of John begins saying that Jesus came full of “grace and truth” (1:14). Jesus says that John the baptizer testified to the “truth”, which was Jesus (5:33). And Jesus declares he is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (14:6). Thus, the truth is more than simply correct facts and interpretations- it is a person (Jesus) and a Way we are called to live. We could believe all the right things and have all the best interpretations of the Bible and still not be in the “truth”.
John describes the truth this way in 1 John 2:4-6:
The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
“Truth” in verse 4 is “knowing him” and this is defined by walking as Jesus walked in verse 6. The Greek verb for “walk” is peripateo and it is a Hebrew idiom translated into Greek. In Hebrew, it would be halach, which was used to express a way of life. In the first century this would have been the picture of the relationship of a disciple to their rabbi. In 3 John 3-4 truth is likewise described as more than walking in correct facts and interpretations but in walking in the character, behavior, and deeds of Jesus. John goes on to give some examples of this:
3 John 5-8
Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; and they have testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support such men, so that we may be fellow workers with the truth.
John shows that walking in the truth is in part about being faithful in your humble service to the brothers and sisters in Christ, living in a testimony/witness of love (1 Cor 13:4-7), and displaying hospitality to those in the church and strangers.
During the first century and following centuries there were prophets, apostles, and teachers who were itinerant and sent to edify and build up the churches in an area. The Didache is an early church writing dating around 100 AD and it is often called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. It gives instructions on how to live as lights in the world and not to follow the ways and behaviors of the world in the first half of the writing. In the second half it gives instructions on different sacramental and functional items such as baptism, communion, welcoming these traveling ministers, and the attitude the body of Christ should have for each other in love.
In Didache chapters 11-13 it talks about welcoming traveling prophets and apostles. In this, it says to receive anyone who teaches in the way of increasing justice towards neighbor and knowledge of the Lord (Did. 11:2) and to receive them as the Lord for 1-2 days, but if they want to settle there they must work to support themselves and the community (Did. 11:3-7, 12:1-5). The way to test these teachers is based on deeds that are of the “conduct of the Lord” and teachings that are not of wicked men (Did. 11:1, 9). The whole section is focused on the behavior and attitude of the teachers because a true prophet must “walk out” what he teaches (Did. 11:8-12). The Didache is not part of the scriptural canon but it is well attested as something informative, trustworthy, and useful in the life of the early church.
We don’t have many traveling prophets or apostles today, most of our ministers and teachers are “in house”, but the same can be said in all of this regarding how we treat brothers and sisters in the body of Christ – both leaders (the mature in Christ) and the younger (less mature in Christ). We should display the truth through walking in love, in hospitality, looking at the fruit of faithfulness, and really centering ourselves on character and actions that reflect Jesus. This is really the core message of 3 John.
When we continue in this text we come to Diotrephes, who’s attitude is what this letter is mostly about or at least contrasted with.
3 John 9-11
I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.
As we mentioned above, Diotrephes was possibly a teaching leader, an elder in the house church with Gaius, or at least someone with some influence in the body of Christ in this church. John describes him as one “who loves to be first among them [and] does not accept what we say [teach]”. John Stott notes that word philoprōteuein (“to be first”) in the region of Asia Minor at this time “denoted two tempers which disturbed the Christian life of Asia Minor—intellectual arrogance and personal aggrandizement.”[1] It seems that Diotrephes is setting himself up as the guardian of truth in the church, seeing other teachers as rivals, and will only permit teaching that lines up with him, and doesn’t mess with his assumed authority as a teacher.
Now, correct beliefs and teaching are important, but approaching the scripture in humility is also essential. There are many people that believe things just because a pastor “told them so” or because it has been their tradition without without looking at the context of scripture, original languages, social and cultural meanings, historical interpretations, or how scripture interprets scripture, as well as being led by the Spirit in these textures of interpretation. I’m not saying we all need to have doctorate degrees in Biblical interpretation but we need to be humble in our approach to scripture as an ancient text written for us but not to us. We should use the tools available to us for research and consider the gifts in people who do this for the benefit of the church, as well as prayer and humbly seeking the Spirit to guide us. Humbleness and open mindedness combined with the leading of the Spirit are important when approaching the text. As we pointed out above, our beliefs and interpretations should lead us into Christlike behavior and attitudes. Producing spiritual fruit and attitudes is the proof of our “walking in the truth”.
Notice that John does not call out Diotrephes’ beliefs, teaching, or interpretation, but rather he calls out his deeds- his attitude. First, he says he “unjustly accuses people with wicked words”. The verb phlyarōn (accusing) means to “talk nonsense” in classical Greek. It conveys the idea that the words were not only wicked, but senseless. The noun phlyaroi in 1 Timothy 5:13 is translated “tattlers” in KJV and “gossips” in NIV. The NEB renders the phrase: “He lays baseless and spiteful charges against us”. Essentially this is defined as slander. Slander is “the action of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation or to make false and damaging statements about someone” (Oxford). In Proverbs this is one of the things the Lord hates the most:
Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things which the Lord hates,Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,And hands that shed innocent blood,A heart that devises wicked plans,Feet that run rapidly to evil,A false witness who utters lies,And one who spreads strife among brothers.
“False witness” here is a liar and slanderer. In Proverbs, and likewise with John, it is connected to evil and spreading strife in the community.
Diotrephes is not content with simply ruining ones reputation or making damaging statements, he has a threefold mission- 1) to not receive someone as a brother (labeling them as non-Christian or someone outside “his” community), 2) forbidding any who want this teacher welcomed in the church, and 3) a desire to cast this person and those who welcome that person out of the church.
In verse 11 John gives a summary on his thoughts on this behavior. He calls the deeds evil. John says that Diotrephes is walking in the way of evil and not the truth. In this he is encouraging Gaius and the rest of the church here to imitate the truth and not the deeds Diotrephes is walking in. A very serious line in scripture comes next in verse 11, “the one who does evil has not seen God”. Diotrephes is a part of the Christian community but His deeds show an alignment with things opposed to Christ’s Way.
John explains this in John 1:18:No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
“Explained” (exegeomai) is the Greek word we get “exegesis” from. Jesus has exegeted God- he has explained him through His life. What John is saying is that no one has seen the complete Way (truth) until Jesus’ incarnation. Hebrews’ author says it in this way :
Hebrews 1:1-3a
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature
The Hebrews are being encouraged to walk the way of Jesus because Jesus is what God has to say. He is the Word of God and also the exact representation (imprint/mark- charagma) of who God is and what God is like. When you see Jesus you see God. He is the one we are called to imitate, not the world. Jesus teaches us how to truly be human.
Jesus also points this out to Philip saying that his works (deeds) are the Father’s works and those abiding in him will do his works (and greater) too.
John 14:9-15
“Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
The one who has not seen Jesus has also not really seen God. The evidence of this is that they don’t walk as Jesus walked (1 John 2:4-6). They are not in the truth because they are not obeying the way (commands) of Christ. To “keep” these commands is not about legalistic box checking but about the transformation that comes out of loving the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. It is someone who has not progressed in transformation into the likeness of Christ- it is proof of spiritual immaturity. Paul explains this saying,
2 Corinthians 3:18
But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
The thing we look into we are transformed into the likeness of.
Diotrephes’ deeds are proof of the need to grow in the fruit of the Spirit in his life and of the fact he isn’t devotedly walking in the way of the truth. He seems to be walking more in the spirit of the World. Was he looking more into the world or Christ?
Paul speaks of this also to the Galatian church:
Galatians 5:15-26
But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.
Paul does not just list moral items but also attitudes and behaviors. The text says that when these fruits of the flesh are present we will devour one another (v15) and it flows from not walking and living in step with the Spirit. Instead it is rooted in boasting, challenges for higher honor, and envy (v26)- this is walking in the spirit of the world. If the church lets these attitudes of Babylon in the church it will result in destruction. This is the reason John says that when he comes he will address the “deeds” of Diotrephes, not just beliefs, teachings, and interpretations.
John concludes his letter with an acknowledgement of Demetrius connected to “what is good” (v11). Coming on the heels of talking about “the evil”, John is reminded of Demetrius when thinking about “the good”.
3 John 12-15
Demetrius has received a good testimony from everyone, and from the truth itself; and we add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true. I had many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; but I hope to see you shortly, and we will speak face to face. Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.
We don’t know much about Demetrius outside of his character and attitude. Interpreters speculate about him; many think he was a member of this congregation who was younger. This is interesting because John is pointing out that sometimes a “younger” can act more mature in Christ than an “older”. John’s main concern in this letter is concentrated on the attitudes and deeds in the church that reflect Christ.
Rather than being a “false witness” like Diotrephes, Demetrius is displayed as a good witness to the way of Christ. Martureo is the Greek verb for our English word to witness, to testify, and the noun martus is what we get martyr from.[2] This word is about being a representative of Jesus and also about giving a testimony or witness of something that you’ve seen and experienced- a whole life reflecting Him. Demetrius’ life is a good testimony/witness and it is summarized by John in three examples: 1) he is well spoken of and has a good reputation with the church, 2) he is confirmed by the truth itself (Jesus and the Spirit in him), 3) and John and the other leaders speak well of his life and witness. Demetrius lives in unity and harmony with the body of Christ in faithfulness, hospitality, and love- he is walking in the way of Jesus.
This study is not aimed at any one person in particular but rather about the attitude and spirit of the world that we’ve seen in the church that is hindering the witness of the church. The church needs to walk in the truth because if we do not walk in truth people will never believe the truth of the gospel. Notice that John seeks to correct the deeds or the spirit of Diotrephes and not cast him out of the community. He is seeking restoration and unity.
Here are some questions we should humbly ask ourselves and our churches:
What can we do to foster a community that walks as Jesus walked?
What steps do we need to take to stop devouring one another in the church?
How can we listen in order to understand instead of listening to just respond?
How can we build, edify, redeem, and restore instead of tearing down and casting out?
What are the attitudes of Babylon in me that need to be purged?
What are the spirits of Babylon in our church that need to be expunged so that we can walk in unity?
Lord help us live out the desire of our King- to live together in unity and love so that the world may know Him.
“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. “O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” (John 17:20-26)
How will the church of Jesus come to unity?
“There’s unity in the Spirit only in the graveyard of the flesh.”
[1] John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 19, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 235.
Article written by Matt Mouzakis Th.D. (edited & postscript written by Will Ryan Th.D.)
POSTSCRIPT:
“keep them in Your name; those you gave to Me, that they may be one as We are.” John 17:11
Have you ever wondered why the church is often divided? Why do we argue over theological details and rather insignificant differences? Jesus used a Hebrew word, ‘ehad. Deuteronomy 6 introduces this word to describe the oneness of God, YHWH is one. Perhaps you have never considered this, but the Hebrew word signifies the constitutional covenant agreement with Israel or those that were given freedom and new life out of the Exodus, a covenant that covered everyone who is aligned in obedience with YHWH regardless of bloodline or their past. Later it would be the same under the teaching of Jesus as it continues to be true today. Everyone has their own journey or expedition, but we are united together under the name of YHWH. In Hebraic thinking, scriptural debate was welcomed and usually celebrated as something that would deepen faith. Later in the first century the church thrived and even became known and unified through these “Mars Hill” type of interactions. It is unfortunate that today (and throughout history) that many have used theology to divide the “oneness” of God rather than build the deeper faith of the church. Stimulate your mind. Challenge your perception. Grow deeper with Jesus.
“until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”Ephesians 4:13
The Greek word henoteta comes from a root that means “one”. You may remember that Jesus prayed for and emphasized this kind of unity in the Spirit. Ephesians continues Jesus’ theme as one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father. In the first century church Paul defines dissensions and schisms as missing the mark. Submission, humility and service, or taking on the mind of Christ is essential to be one in Christ.
EXPEDITION 44 