Money is the root of all evil… right? That’s a very popular misquote of 1 Timothy 6:10 … or is it?
Some will correct me and say, well it’s actually the “love of money” according to scripture, but is that actually any different?
Perhaps a better verse is Hebrews 13:5
Let your way of life be free from the love of money, being content with what you have, for He Himself has said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.”
Following Jesus is a way of life. If you are a Christian, you are an exile and alien. I have a book called “this is the way” which is a word play off the Disney Star Wars Mandalorian series. it’s a consideration for when you have given your whole life towards something you always thought was right, later to find that maybe you were off a little bit…
How much do you give to the Lord?
In the classic Old Testament Hebraic mindset the answer should be, “all that you have been given.” In other words, everything is the Lord’s and should be given back to Him. You have simply been entrusted to the finances of the kingdom for a short time. This is the circular dance of grace. In our western thinking this is likely where we get the original audience’s interpretation of Biblical giving wrong… thinking that God just requires a tithe (confused with OT passages), or that there are no strings attached to Grace.
Is Grace free? Are there strings attached? I have a feeling some people are going to need to consider some deconstruction of what you might think the Bible says about money and giving and possibly even what the church has told you.
Grace is free but it also might have some strings attached. To be clear, Grace is totally free, but if you’re going to follow the Lord then you should follow the Lord with all that you are and have been given and freely give back all that you are and have been endowed with- which to some sounds like attached strings.
To most Americans the idea that God wants everything doesn’t sit very well. What would alter calls sound like if we told people the whole story before we asked them to put their hand up! We make it so easy to make a momentary decision to follow Jesus without truly calculating the investment. In a way the simple faith is beautiful and all you need to commit to Jesus; but in other regards, the covenant commitment should be approached with an allegiance that our current evangelical culture likely doesn’t spell out very well as they are rattling off the steps to salvation.
It even becomes more uncomfortable as Christian Americans when you ask somebody if they love money. Nearly every American does. That’s why Christians are so quick to try to explain how this verse means something different emphasizing the “LOVE OF” clause. Christian Americans are in a little bit of a wrestling match because they want to proclaim that they don’t love money; yet the giant mortgages, lifelong debt, and working around the clock every week say otherwise. It sure looks like we all love money, and that’s actually the implication of the scripture.
Is there really much difference to say that money is the root of all evil or the love of money is the root of all evil? In Biblical thinking it was basically the same. The complete cultural thought or mindset is perhaps better than the literal interpretation here. To those living next to me in America it would seem that one is essentially the same. If your life looks like you love money, you probably do and anything that separates you from complete devotion to the Lord is “EVIL” or “SATANIC.”
The word “love of money” is philarguros, literally, “a friend of silver.” This is a Greek verb that was used in the scriptural context to describe brothers and sisters of one body (which we like to call the church in present day language -that’s up for argument though.) I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen more destruction in “the church” than nearly anywhere else towards people. Of course, that doesn’t mean that I’m going to walk away from it either. Could this have been implied in this verse? But put the church aside and it’s interesting that we see this kind of destruction (tied to money) amongst family members as well. Seems like we have the hardest time getting along with our own family than anyone else, and at some point, your church should become your family. Seems the Biblical authors made this connection. Today, it would seem that money is root of more church problems and family dynamics than anything else I can think of.
So let me speak Greek for a moment. In Greek verb is the object of the action. The New Testament treats philarguros as coveting. Surely most Christians in America don’t covet money? And even worse churches don’t covet money, right?
One of my friends recently posted a picture that essentially said; “if the Bible says money is the root of all evil than why are so many churches asking for it.” Of course what followed was a discussion of how people are miss quoting the Bible… but my interjection is “are they?”
Don’t Christians in America want what everybody else has? Haven’t most of our churches made that a clear point? The church salaries and 401k’s should be equal to salaries and retirement packages within our world; the church building should be as nice as the finest of homes and business’? Was Solomon right in turning the tent tabernacle into a large edifice of gold? Did God smile on that?
Have I gotten under your skin yet? Shouldn’t Christian Americans have what everybody else has? Even though we are aliens in a foreign world, shouldn’t what the foreign world offers be part of our life as well? Can’t we also adapt this way of life as Christians? Can’t the exiles of Babylon have everything the new world has to offer without betraying their “lord?” This mindset is not within the thought of the biblical authors. In fact it’s the tragedy of the American entitlement mentality and Christianity.
-Perhaps the Amish had it right?
-perhaps the Essenes?
-how about those at Masada?
-the crusaders or reformers?
Yep this is messy and complicated. What did it mean in the culture that the Scriptures were written during “to be ruled by the love of money?” The scripture would seem to tell us it simply means to give more of your time, heart, and passion to something other than God… isn’t that every American I know?!
Essentially the Hebraic way of living is that your complete life is a gift. This gift is a reciprocal dance mirroring what God has given you. Total humility, complete giving back of what you have been given, and utter devotion to your Father.
In the hands of the follower of the Way, contentment is a sign of trust in the grace and mercy of God. From the biblical point of view, the only reason a man or woman can entertain contentment is because God is good. His provision is sufficient. Greed leads away from Him and towards the love of things of the world separating us from the Love of Christ.
Is money a necessary evil for a Christian? Is their kingdom money and worldly money? Does God not really care about the money? These are all great questions to this discussion.
You might remember when Moses asked God to enter the promised land God told him to be content with the answer. We typically think about contentment in the present sense, but this is God asking us to think bigger. The Hebrew form reminds us to think in future tense. Contentment is accepting God’s grace in the past, God’s gift today and God’s promise in the future. It’s a reciprocal dance and a way of life. It has very little to do with wealth, money, or entitlement.
Is the love of money or money itself the root of evil? I don’t really think it matters… what matters is that God wants all of us to mirror all of what God has given us. And from the biblical authors mindset money had very little to do with any of that kind of thinking. It is the posture of the heart.
If you have to ask the question, “is money or the joy of money the root of all evil?” Then you’re not thinking correctly (biblically) or probably living the kind of life God is asking you to live.
I have been into climbing for a long time. When I was in 8th grade (going into HS) our church hired a new youth HS pastor from Colorado named Steve Ledford that asked me and a friend to go to Devils Lake with Him to climb. I was athletic and had done some “bouldering” before but never been climbing on rope. That day my life changed, or was better, “influenced” forever. First Steve (although was later unfortunately let go by our church) went on to be one of my best mentors in life. I also went on to become a certified AMGA guide and climb more mountains than I can count including some of the largest in the world. But more importantly, I decided to dedicate a good part of my life to use the sport of climbing to introduce people to a better understanding of themselves and what God has for them. This last weekend a good friend of mine (Phil Reynolds) and I took our boys on an epic “climb” to learn some mountaineering basics and introduce them to some fundamental considerations of life. We took the time to share how every opportunity has the potential to shape your life and influence the lives of others, and how important it is to recognize and utilize these life moments.
It came about when the priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord had come up from the middle of the Jordan, and the soles of the priests’ feet were lifted up to the dry ground, that the waters of the Jordan returned to their place, and went over all its banks as before. Joshua 4:18 NASB
If you aren’t familiar with Hebrew, let me share something pretty basic about the language that you probably aren’t aware of, Stefan Schorch puts this best, “the Hebrew script is not able to record vowels, with the exception of the so-called vowel letters (matres lectionis), although the distinctiveness of a certain vocalization may carry important semantic information. As a result, the Hebrew Bible contains in fact a large number of words with different meaning, which had been homographs before the invention of the masoretic pointing.”[1]
Joshua 4:8 is a great example of the challenges that this has brought us in regard to interpretation. The verb used here means “to go up, climb, ascend” [עָלָה (ʿālâ)]. Notice the description in TWOT:
There are nearly 900 occurrences of the verb ʿālâ in the ot. The most common meanings in the simple tenses are “go up” (over 300 times), “come up” (over 160 times) and “ascend” (17 times). In the causative stems the two predominant meanings are “to bring up” (over 100 times) and “to offer” (77 times). The other 230 uses of the word are translated about 85 different ways in the av.[2]
To put this plainly, this single word in Hebrew takes on over 100 different English translations. Here is a list of some of the derivatives:
To many this is very confusing. How can the simple word for “climbing” in the Bible be translated in so many ways that often seem so far apart, possibly not even noticeably related when translated in English. This is why Biblical Hebrew is challenging to say the least. Context helps, but much of the older Hebrew scripture was guarded through oral handing down, that we have to simply take on a certain sense of trust with. In fact, the oldest written scriptures we have are at best from a few hundred years before the time of Christ yet represent “inspired writings” from what we like to think would have been original manuscripts lost many years before this but guarded and carried down (or up to us) by oral tradition. X44 is on a long video series on the church but when we finish, we will be unveiling perhaps the longest anticipated series yet on inspiration and inerrancy. This conversation will start to consider some of the points we will greatly consider in the upcoming X44 Youtube series on inspiration and inerrancy. But I won’t be getting much deeper into that today.
Many of our X44 readers know that the Masoretes decided when and where they would add the vowel points and I have to say alot rides on this and reads into our translations. Wikipedia would tell us that the Masoretes “were groups of Jewish scribe-scholars who worked from around the end of the 5th through 10th centuries CE. Each group compiled a system of pronunciation and grammatical guides in the form of diacritical notes (niqqud) on the external form of the Biblical text in an attempt to standardize the pronunciation, paragraph and verse divisions, and cantillation of the Hebrew Bible. The ben Asher family of Masoretes was largely responsible for the preservation and production of the Masoretic Text
So as if Biblical Hebrew isn’t hard enough to translate already, now that you know, you have to consider the fact that your English translation is highly influenced by this group of people that took the liberty to fill in a lot of blanks throughout the text. But this is me taking a second to teach Theology, let me return to my primary observation.
The Hebrew word “ala” in its most basic sense described what it meant to “CLIMB OR ASCEND.” In a Biblical sense the idea means that you are going to allow something to influence you or be the catalyst to influence others. Are you identifying and looking for a climb every day? Nearly every decision we make has the power to influence who we are and want to be before the Lord. We have the power to shape who we want to be or allow ourselves to digress based on the same process of influence.
This last weekend I led my boys and their best friends in life up a 900 foot egress of rock to a pinnacle where we camped on the top and firsthand watched the majestic splendors of the cosmos declared to the Lord. We also were steps from imminent death with one misplaced foot or handhold. This expedition will influence them forever. The Biblical words for climb mean so much. They describe how we learn, how we heal, how we stretch ourselves, and determine our pathway and live in spiritual balance. The words embody the course that is given to the Lord spiritually at nearly every decision and the allegiant obedient faith that characterizes the covenant relationship that we walk in each and every day.
How is your climb going? Are you each and every day considering where Jesus will lead? Are you approaching life as an open ascent to the cosmos that has been given to you? Do you see yourself as a shepherd guide to mentor others in this? If you haven’t figured it out with the over 100 different interpretations, THIS IS THE WAY.
[1] Stefan Schorch, “Dissimilatory reading and the making of Biblical texts: the Jewish Pentateuch and the Samaritan Pentateuch”, in Raymond F. Person, Jr. and Robert Rezetko (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (SBL Press, 2016), p. 113.
[2] Carr, G. L. (1999). 1624 עָלָה. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 666). Chicago: Moody Press.
[3] Carr, G. L. (1999). 1624 עָלָה. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 666). Chicago: Moody Press.
Some guys are into golf, or hunting, or sports… I am into all of those things but my passion for Jesus and discipleship is not only my life mission but the joy of my life that outweighs everything else and that philosophy not only “filters” into everything else in life, but actually drives them.
MY HISTORY WITH SOCCER
I played club soccer when I was young in the 90’s and played at my small Christian High School leading them to small school “state” twice. My nickname was “the beast” which was given to me at the Christian school I attended, and I am sure had some theological undertones as that was when every Christian kid was reading Frank E. Peretti‘s “this present darkness series.” I had several scholarship offers to play at secular colleges but went on to play at Moody Bible Institute instead (as I had a clear spiritual calling on my life that I identified at an early age) and was part of the national championship team in 1993. I only played in college for a year and decided to “go professional.” I had played previously in friendlies with the Milwaukee Wave which opened the door to an invitation to join the Chicago fire during their inaugural year with the MLS in 1998 but turned them down (because I would have been the youngest person on the team and likely wouldn’t have seen any playing time) to go play soccer in Europe for Conway United. I played a few practice matches with the Fire before I left for Wales and was glad to have been a small part of the organization during the year that they went on to win both MLS Cup ’98 and the 1998 U.S. Open Cup Final, both in a five-day timespan. Since those days I continue to be part of the soccer world. I’ve been a licensed soccer referee for over 30 years and am a well credentialed coach at nearly all levels. I still play regularly and plan to play until the day I die. All four of my boys have been raised with a ball at their feet since they could walk and have played in club and with the local Christian schools.
MT ZION AND SOCCER
My wife and I have coached at the small local Christian school (that is connected with Mt Zion, the church we attend) in our town since my oldest son Ty was old enough to play for them. My wife and I have built this program from day one around Jesus. Mt Zion Soccer has a reputation for character development and discipleship. Our (only) goal is to build and impact lives positively for Jesus. I have very little concern if we win or lose but the journey that we will travel together for the kingdom – surprisingly we have won our conference nearly every year and were undefeated last year (funny how kingdom principles work that way). One of the things our program has been known for is teaching encouragement. Each practice we encourage the kids to speak 44 words of encouragement to others as well as other kingdom principles. We will regularly have devotions at practice, but in a sense, the entire practice is devotional. We make it our personal goal as coaches to have at least one strategic or purposeful interaction with each student at every game and practice. We asked a well experienced husband and wife couple named Israel and Ivanna to join us coaching. Their sole job was to individually coach each kid. Israel is a soccer expert and coached skill while Ivanna took it on herself to simply encourage and build up with words and build relationships at every opportunity.
As a sidebar, my good friend Steve Cassell regularly says club sports are “the devil” in his favorite “waterboy” accent and I have to largely agree with him. They regularly remove people from the local church culture community. Keep Jesus first and don’t compromise. Your kids are watching.
BE DILIGENT
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NASB You likely have the verse above memorized, but let’s rethink it. Be diligent –in Greek this word is Spoudazo.
That’s the word for this soccer season, it is actually where we get the English slang word “Spaz.” In its original language it implied a lot. Be diligent. Be eager. Be earnest. Be steadfast. Be immovable. Be consistent. Be kind. Be strong. Be loving. Be generous. Be energetic. Be relentless. (And so much more) …but in all of these be devotional & diligent unto the Lord.
We usually think of this verse in terms of academics. I remember growing up in Awana, this was the “STUDY” verse. But today, as I so frequently do on x44, I want to challenge you to deconstruct some of the poor theological presumptions you may have been given over the years about this verse. Paul isn’t telling us to memorize everything (although He may believe that as a Torah observant Jew that likely has the entire law memorized) – but this, in context, is not what this verse is about.
Hermeneutically, he is encouraging “being the person God approves.” Be diligent to present yourself, not your cognitive ability.
Study is certainly important, but it isn’t the goal. The goal is the person, completed in Christ. And that is the goal of our soccer season and very much our personal parenting and life coaching season!
We are coaching to focus on the “perfected” work of Jesus. We are focusing on overcoming, seeking victory, building up others, exercising and developing our spiritual giftset, and truly taking on the mind of Christ.
The verb Paul uses that we interpret as “accurately handling” is literally “cut correctly” (orthotomeo). This is sculpting language. The temple was fit and formed together like a puzzle without any fasteners. This image takes on the idea of that sense. Paul wrote in Greek but was thinking in Hebrew & that perspective is about doing, not just thinking, we see that the workman produces nothing if he only thinks about it. That the final result of things fitting so well in the kingdom is very much about the final result. Last year the Mt Zion school theme was to be a doer, the craftsman has to put his skills to work to produce the intended result. Being well intended or good hearted is great, but the kingdom calling is towards the final result of being fully formed by Jesus. Jesus’ discipleship was about the finished work, and that was a “here and now” statement not an eschatological “someday.” We have to put God’s words to work in our lives to produce the intended result – a finished workman for the work we are made and designed to do TODAY. The temple being fit and formed was just a foundational piece to the work that was supposed to have been done through it for the kingdom.
The objective of our life “expedition” is to become the master craftsman of ourselves through Jesus. Our goal is to be in continual production of a person approved by God. The “material” can actually be nearly anything in life.
This season we are going to get “cut” for Jesus. The goal is to become in peak spiritual condition and along the way we are going to learn the game of soccer, fine tune our skills, get physically fit, find the balance of life and become the best we can be in every measure; all the while well having as much fun as we can! Encouragement is going to “shape” our season!
X44 has a lot of slogans that we are reclaiming. For instance, “into the storm” has been borrowed by some with far-right political agenda’s but was first coined as a phrase in the first century of complete discipleship. We have an article on this. Another slogan we are taking back is “BURN THE SHIPS.”
Most people recognize the phrase “burn the ships” to be associated with Cortes, the great Spanish explorer who destroyed his entire fleet upon reaching the destination of his “mission”. Landing at present-day Veracruz, Mexico in 1519, he destroyed his ships so that when the going got rough his men would have no means of retreat. It was do or die trying. No going back, only pressing on. It was an act of total devotion to the mission they believed God had called them to.
There are likely a few things about this story that may surprise you. You might have guessed, that like so many Middle Ages pursuits of the day, part of the reason why this story is described as a “mission” was based on the need to evangelize the lost. Whether you’re describing the crusades, or likely any endeavor tied into governmental acquisition it was often done in the name of the Lord, right or wrong. In this sense, Cortes was thought to be on a mission from God. You might also be surprised to know that despite the well-known phrase “burn the ships” which has long been associated with Cortes, He didn’t actually burn the ships, he just “scuttled” or dismantled them beyond use. So why do we say he “burned the ships?” This phrase and action was actually pretty common to his day. It was often ordered and taken figuratively as an “ALL IN” or no turning back statement.
Agathocles of Syracuse in 310 BC, Emperor Julian in 363, William of Normandy in 1066 are likely better examples of people that actually “burned the ships” in the same regard (there are many others who did this, see the list below). Regardless, the idea started, or should have started and came to fruition anyway, with Israel and the Exodus. Not so much with “ships” but the idea of no turning back. It’s a great message and an attitude for which every Christian should strive to emulate. Christ calls us and calls us fully. complete discipleship means we are to die (or live in humble self-sacrifice) to everything else and live fully for the one who has given Himself for us through the giving of His life and asks us to live in the same way.
Some Historians question the motives of Cortes. Was he a man of God and all in for the kingdom? I believe so. I would actually say, perhaps more so than most of us are today. As you consider what it means to be “all in” for discipleship, consider the story of Cortes a bit more closely and what it really meant to “burn the ships.” Would you leave everything in the name of discipleship? Many of us say we will but not nearly to this extent.
Cortés made a special request in his letters to the emperor for special powers to be granted for evangelization and discipleship of his crew. He sought the powers for the Franciscans because his people and the natives were “so far from the proper remedies of our consciences,” but he feared the damage normal clerics may cause. [1] Cortés is shown in the writings of Díaz del Castillo, who was with him on the conquest, to have regularly and publicly given speeches and thanks to God to encourage the conversion. One such example is recounted in thorough detail in the Historia Verdadera, Vol. 2, Chapter 77, where Cortés is personally attempting to convert the Tlaxcalans. He is recounted as explaining the mission of the Spaniards to convert the natives and end human sacrifice. He also showed deference to the priest, Father de la Merced, which enabled the Spanish to obtain from the Tlaxcalans a newly constructed temple for Our Lord.[2]
The spiritual aspect of Cortés’s conquest was far more important than the terrestrial aspect. The gods of the Aztec peoples along with those in the remainder of Mexico demanded cruel and regular sacrifices. The Aztecs diligently provided them in cooperation and in conflict with their neighbors, and they have stood out as one of the most brutal empires in the history of the world. Thousands were offered up to the gods every year, including women and children. Sounds a bit like abortion in the US.
The conversion of the New World started with the order from Cortés to scuttle his ships and take over the nation. His passion for the conversion to Christ led Bartolomé de Las Casas, a Dominican friar, to write: “Through this captain, God opened the door for us to preach his holy gospel, and it was he who caused the Indians to revere the holy sacraments and respect the ministers of the church.”[3]
The term “burn the ships” adopted by Cortés reminds us that the Jesus’ challenge is to commitment for life. There is no turning back. God calls His disciples to be “all in.”
[1] Cortés, Hernán. Hernán Cortés: Letters from Mexico. Translated and edited by Anthony R. Pagden. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1971. Letter IV. Page 333.
(1) One account of the Danaan invasion of Ireland has it that upon landing, they burned their ships, causing a great mist to rise up and terrifying the inhabitants who thought the Danaans arrived in a cloud.
(2) In Book V of the Aeneid, the Trojan women attempt to burn the ships after they arrive on Sicily, but a rainstorm thwarts their plans.
(3) In 351 BC, Sidon rebelled against Ochus, the King of Persia. They burned all the ships in the harbor to prevent anyone from fleeing. When it became clear that the city had been betrayed and the Persians were entering, they set fire to their own homes and the entire city was obliterated.
(4) In 296, the Praetorian Prefect, Asclepiodotus, commanded an army belonging to the emperor Constantius Chlorus, and led it against the usurper Allectus. Having arrived in Britain to confront Allectus, Asclepiodotus burned his own ships to prevent his men from retreating.
(5) In 363, Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome invaded Persia. After his army crossed the Tigris he had all the pontoons and barges burned so there would be no thought of going back.
(6) In 711, Tariq ibn Ziyad, for whom Gibraltar is named, landed there, burned his ships and embarked on the conquest of Spain.
(7) Some accounts claim that William the Duke of Normandy burnt his ships on arriving in England in 1066.
(8) In 1169, a group of about 250 English freebooters under the bastards Robert Fitz-Stephen, Meiler Fitz-Henry, and Meiler Fitz-David, along with a vassal of king Henry, named Hervey Montmorency, raided Wexford, and having been repulsed they were so ashamed, they burnt their ships and determined to succeed or die trying.
(9) Hernando Cortez supposedly burned his ships in 1519 to prevent anyone returning to Cuba and reporting his mutiny to the Spanish governor there, but most historians would dispute this.
(10) According to a book published in 1689, which purported to be the journal of a pirate named Raveneau de Lussan, he at one point led his men across the isthmus of the Americas through Honduras after first burning their ship to prevent anyone from defecting.
(11) In 1779, during the celebrated battle between John Paul Jones and the English ship of the line, Serapis, rather than flee or surrender Jones desparately kamikazeed his sinking ship into the Serapis and captured it va banque.
(12) In 1789, sailors serving on the HMS Bounty under the notorious Captain Bly mutinied and sailed to Pitcairn Island where they burned the Bounty.
If you are familiar with X44 at all you know we don’t shy away from tough topics. You also know we aren’t overly concerned with any reasons for believing or following something other than what the Bible instructs. In theology there are “good” views and poor views. A good view shows that something lines up according to the textures of hermeneutics within the overall lens of scripture. A poor view means that something is a stretch or doesn’t really hold water when examined by itself or in the context of the rest of scripture. Sometimes we say you have to do a lot of theological gymnastics to make a view like that work, which isn’t a compliment.
In the case of looking at homosexuality there are many “poor” theological views. For instance, I hear a lot of people say things like, “if the Bible were written today in this culture, it would likely take a different stand on homosexuality.” That is a poor view. The Bible is timeless. I also hear that civilization has evolved or advanced and that homosexuality is a more advanced view of “loving everyone” especially in regard to what a finished or recreated heaven and earth looks like where there doesn’t seem to be a place for gender. As this statement has some considerational merit; it still represents a poor theological view because it stands in stark disagreement with other parts of scripture. I will address this view more in a moment. I also hear people say something like, “the Bible hardly addresses the subject.” That may or may not be true, but there are several statements on homosexuality that give us a clear course. Furthermore, theologically you can’t completely discount something because there isn’t a lot of it.
Sometimes you hear me use the term “minor view” within the context of theology. A minor view means most theologians believe something else, but there is a contingency of well thought scholars that believe the Bible teaches one of the less predominant views, doctrines, or ideas. I hold a few of these views. As an example, one of them is a view on hell called conditionalism over the much more commonly held view of Eternal Conscious Torment. However, it is important to point out that most theologians primary reason for holding a certain view is always because they believe either the Bible better defends the view, or that it fits better into the overall narrative of the Biblical message. In other words, a minor view is held because you think the actual scripture best supports the view. There isn’t another valid reason for holding a minor view. In this case the view that homosexuality is sin before the Lord is the predominant or major view of theologians and Christianity, it is difficult to find a “minor view” that agrees with scripture.
According to the overall story and message of the Bible, the Torah, and Jesus, let’s explore what the scripture actually teaches about following the Lord and homosexuality. In other words, we aren’t really addressing opinion, we are addressing what the Bible says.
The Bible doesn’t say nearly as much about the topic of Homosexuality as people want it to. I often say that wasn’t the primary intent of scripture, but it is some of the message for us. It does clearly address the topic. Gen. 19: 1-13; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10 are the primary passages that prohibit homosexuality. But the rest of the Bible also speaks to the subject as Greg Boyd [1] puts it, “the entire biblical narrative presupposes that sex is supposed to take place between a man and a woman in the context of marriage (Gen. 2:23-24). The Biblical definition of “sin” is “missing the mark” (hamartia), and on the basis of this scriptural evidence, I have to regard homosexuality as “missing the mark” of God’s ideal. So yes, I regard homosexuality to be a sin.” I would encourage you to read Greg’s take on this subject as well which X44 would agree with. (See end note.)
Lastly (before I really dive in), I don’t know of any Theologians that I would typically say have good theological perspectives that take a different view on this subject. Even the more “liberal” or forward thinking possibly even “progressive” theologians that interpret the Bible for all that it is worth would largely agree with this article. There are small debates that I find interesting, such as the idea that “if in a recreated heaven and earth situation there is no gender shouldn’t we practice this kind of love here and now?” as I alluded to above. As I love this discussion, the blatant problem with that thought in particular (and many like it), is that the Bible clearly says that here and now that “act” would be sin in the eyes of God. I don’t see things being contrary to his word in Heaven. The other problem is that thought pattern falls off logically and theologically in terms of sexuality that is confined to earthly realms. We don’t know exactly what “love” looks like in the fulness of God’s plan and would be wrong theologically to assert “our plan or idea” as part of God’s. Consideration is one thing, forming a doctrine is another. We simply don’t have the writings (we don’t have the cards, we weren’t given that book, that isn’t the primary intent of those passages, and we don’t have the right to read anything into them) or the understanding to “see” what the recreated heavens will reveal in terms of love between each other. But if I have learned anything in my studies, it is that the thoughts of humanity are usually far from the thoughts of the Lord God Most High (אֵל עֶלְיוֹן). Usually, the way we think God should do things is a far Cry from His divine Will.
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22
Perhaps the most quoted verse in this arena is Leviticus 18:22. American and other prevalent worldly culture would have us believe in the right to “love” whomever you wish. Often if you don’t view “love” in this “open” sense you are considered archaic or bigoted and repressive by those that do. However, when reading this verse in Leviticus it is difficult to argue anything other than that the cultural/Biblical view of the early Biblical authors clearly forbid homosexuality and the practice is described as an abomination. The Hebrew word used for abomination is the word to’evah and is best translated “a thing of horror.” The context is that if you are practicing this act, you become abhorrent to God and righteousness. I think it is important to break this down. To be clear, homosexuality isn’t condemned in this passage or others because it is harmful to the body (although that may be true), or because it is self-absorbed (and therefore contrary to scripture and also true), or because it is violent (which might also have a case in scripture); but in determining the exact forbiddance here textually it is prohibited as Feinstein notes because “is at its core an appeal to the emotions.”[2] At first this seems too simple and watered down. But think about it for a moment, that is often the simple beauty of the scripture. The idea of homosexuality in Leviticus causes an emotional reaction of horror because it is so counter cultural to the Yahweh covenant governing pure undefiled relationships. It is exactly opposite of what God has designed you for. Today homosexuality is no longer abhorrent. It is just “another choice,” there is no emotional disturbance. We aren’t Israel. We are Babylon and in Babylon lots of things no longer make us sick.
If you are interested in my in depth take on this passage, I would have to say I land very closely to my old friend (RIP-SHALOM) from UW Madison where we studied Hebrew together, Michael Heiser. You can follow his discussion here. [3]
To be completely unbiased, if the passages in the OT were the only passages that condemned homosexuality I might be on the fence on the subject. The reason I say this is because parts of the Torah I believe are still “best practice” or God’s “ideals” for us as Christ followers, but not everything in the “law” can or is likely intended to be followed under the new covenant. How do you know or choose? That question has taken me a lifetime to personally analyze and enact in our family. The fact that Jesus fully kept the law, and we are to “follow” Jesus continues to make this a personal challenge to everyone. Most people aren’t going to question that the New Testament confirms what the Old Testament says about Homosexuality. Perhaps the only “angle” contrary would be those that interpret the stance of Paul to be anti-homosexual conveying his personal beliefs but not being indicative of the rest of the New Testament. To most Christians this view would be heretical, but possibly a consideration to those with that “open” of a theology. This leaves you asking the question, “what did Jesus Himself conclude about Homosexuality?” To be clear Jesus maintained Torah law but not Rabbinical law, in other words it seemed Jesus aligned with Levitical law in my opinion. But I will come back to this as well.
1 Corinthians 6:9 arsenokoitai Greek “homosexual”
Arsenokoitai is the Greek word most frequently translated as homosexuality. It is a bit vague, but not as vague as some modern-day articles would have you think. Sometimes it takes on a more word for word translation of “abusers of themselves with mankind” or “them that defile themselves with mankind”. One of the million dollar questions is why do translators choose to translate the way they do? There are a lot of “not so great” translations that are based on the cultural norms or political lean of the 16th or 17th centuries which marks the basis of most of our translations, or perhaps we could discuss a word for word vs contextual thought pattern of interpretation. This is a great discussion that will come into play here, but most of that conversation I will leave for a different article or the long anticipated X44 YouTube series on inerrancy so many of you are waiting for us to do after we complete the seemingly never-ending church series! But at any rate, this Greek word is a case where I think we can dive in and do better in terms of translation, as I said above, we actually have a very clear path linguistically to follow.
Most Greek words can be easily rendered by breaking down the word itself. Greek works like building blocks of smaller parts of words to create a larger word that encompasses all of the thoughts of the smaller parts. This word comes from arsen (a Greek word for “male”) and koite (“to lay down for rest or sleep, but figuratively, the marriage bed or marriage itself”). I hate to point this out, but we get the word “coitus” from this Greek root which leaves no room for interpretation that this is anything other than inferring sexual intercourse. I will also note that within 2nd temple period extra Biblical source we don’t have to search very hard to find the same renderings. When this was written, homosexuality was rampant in Rome. 13 of the 14 Roman Emperors were homosexuals. This verse is clearly saying that those who practice the act of homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God and are deceived as the practice is evil. This culture norm within the earthly empire was completely opposite to the kingdom of Jesus. Furthermore, the implication is that if you choose to follow Jesus you must leave this act behind, it has no place within the sacred undefiled temple of the Lord which is now, under the New Covenant your very body and being. You are a representation or ambassador of this Jesus kingdom and can’t serve two masters. Your commission and very purposeful design is to represent. And in case you are wondering if there is any chance this is just a singular text or idea that could simply be the thought of Paul personally, or mis-represented over the years in translation or scribed error, Romans 1:27-29 reiterates nearly the exact idea using the same and slightly different words which is a common Biblical way of making sure we received the correct message. Whether you put Paul as the author of Romans or not, the authors knew that God condemned homosexual intercourse from the time of Abraham and the New Testament writings are in alignment with those thoughts hundreds/thousands of years later. God didn’t change His stance on this, and He isn’t going to.
NT Wright would assert, [4] “He [Paul] sees the practice of same-sex relations as a sign that the human world in general is out of joint.This out-of-jointness, he says, is the result of God allowing people to follow lust wherever it leads—once they have lost their grip on God’s truth and, like Adam and Eve in the garden, listened to the voice of the creature rather than the voice of God…“
To be clear this isn’t an argument over habit, or genetics; it likely is connected to the fallen world but God isn’t overly concerned with how it came to be, as much as He is concerned about the Exodus of it and deliverance back into the reclaiming of your original undefiled design to be holy and pure before the Lord. We may enjoy and be used to practicing sin in our former ways, but once you make an allegiant decision to follow the Lord you are making a decision to abide by what God says is holy and take steps towards being a completely “remade” and “renewed” person putting away the desires and activities of the world and becoming like Jesus. In this regard Homosexuality should be treated like any other sin (and in some cases a sexual sin against your body specifically) – we are called to completely stop and pray that God remove it from our remaining “human” being as we are transformed into the process of becoming a “spiritual” being preparing for eternity in a new Heaven and Earth. Perhaps everyone still sins each and every day, but hopefully not willfully. A healthy Christian makes a decision based on Jesus in their life to not continue to give in to the sin of the world. It is one thing to occasionally fall into sin, it is another to willfully continue to live and walk in that sin. The Bible says we are to cut such things out of our lives and be agents of helping other like-minded believers to do the same. This is a major tenet of discipleship.
In this sense, homosexual acts should be considered similar to other sinful acts. The only consideration to which the Bible places some sins differently than others is in terms of sexual sins to be against your body which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. By this, scripture seems to imply that sexual sins carry more implications of recovery and/or repercussions than others might. Homosexuality sins may or may not be in this nature. Not every homosexual sin is sexual. When someone first makes a decision to follow Jesus they only “begin” the journey to be delivered. This is the road to sanctification and isn’t completed until the recreated heavens and earth are established fulfilling our design to partner with the Lord. Some on this earth will get closer than others and your path is between you and the Lord and frankly no one else. But we are indeed moved and called by scripture to give up the former passions of our earthly desires and be transformed into the new remade purpose that God has for us. To be frank a mature believer should be living nearly completely redeemed. As we will never live without the effect of sin while we are in this world, God is calling us to live in freedom and redemption separated from sin and indwelled with the Spirit.
Is there any other room for more “open” theological interpretation?
Personally, as I affirm above, I don’t think there is. I could go through all of the scriptures I mention at the beginning of the article (and in a video I would), but I think the Bible is pretty clear in this area. However, I would recommend Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church (ed. Preston Sprinkle). The problem of any other view is that it is going to have to render the clear portions of scripture a different way. This is what I started the topic as saying requires some theological gymnastics that most Christians scriptural interpreters aren’t comfortable with.
In my mind, you are left with three options:
1. Repent and repair (reparative therapy) -Pray that Jesus truly Heals you and gives you freedom from Sin. This is what I truly believe is offered to us. Reparative therapy isn’t always good. It has been unfortunately the source of much trauma and abuse in the church and continues to be a catalyst used often for more harm than good. However, Jesus is the master healer. If all things point to Jesus in terms of healing and reparative therapy, you have the right idea.
2. Accept and refrain (celibacy) -Eventually all things will be made new, but until God does that work in you, you respectfully refrain. I have some room for this view, in a way, isn’t this what we are called to do largely anyway? Abstinence is often the best policy to start the healing process. It seems to be part of the step to attain total healing. This is a large part of what it means to live in humble devotion. However, there are other considerations, celibacy is a contranym in scripture. Is it a blessing or a curse? Thats is up to you and Jesus. It can go either way.
3. Accept and affirm what you want to believe (i.e. the Bible gets it wrong): for those who are genuinely gay, something Paul does not believe in, Paul’s teachings (and the Torah) do not apply. I don’t even consider this a “poor theological view”, it is not even a “theological view” in my opinion. To take this view you are saying you simply do not believe the Bible is timeless or still true today. Most Christians logically and theologically can’t or perhaps shouldn’t allow themselves to get here. I typically call this “building your theology on anything” and it isn’t Biblical. -I don’t care that it’s wrong. I don’t care what God says. I’m going to “do that thing THEOLOGY.” Perhaps as I earlier alluded to, some are ok with throwing out Paul’s theology and simply removing Him from the authority of scripture. I can’t do that personally (or hermeneutically) whether I “like” his demeaner or not. To continue to live in what the Bible describes as “sin” would not appear to most devout followers to be a “Biblical” choice.
Jesus would love the sinner
I believe the “Christianese” 21st century plan of loving the sinner but not the sin hasn’t been lived out very well by the church. The church in general has identified what the Bible says about loving others but hasn’t fulfilled it through love in action. Brian Zahnd would say, ” The church is being challenged to act like Jesus. Held accountable for not sounding like Jesus. And losing a generation who wants to follow Jesus.” The image of this article sort of conveys much that I dislike about our Christian culture. We say we love them and eagerly desire to show them God’s love to restore them to a better view and true understanding of Biblical love, but our actions typically are far from conveying that heart. We need to do better. I can’t stand to be in the midst of most anti-homosexual “Christian” circles. They make me sick to my stomach, their anti-love of Jesus sentiment abhors me in a Levitical way. The un-Godly pronouncement over the LGBTQ community by Christians is often as bad as the homosexual sin itself. Treating others this way is counter to what Jesus taught.
It should go without needing to be said that if you are a faithful follower of Jesus and one that seeks to disciple (and we all should), then part of your calling is to lovingly reveal the truth of the scripture to those that may not see. Be the hands and feet of Jesus and shepherd people to the understanding of the scriptures and guide them to truth in Jesus.
Let me say to those of you who struggle with Homosexuality that I love you and so does Jesus. I don’t despise you, and I certainly do not think you are a terrible person or can’t be reconciled to the Love of God. This is not a difficult statement for me or hard for me to empathize with or imagine; in fact, so much that many around me might actually think I am “ok” with homosexuality or wonder if I think it is sin at all. To be honest when other Christians ridicule me for my “acceptance” of the LGBTQ cultures I count it as gain before the Lord. Jesus would have met them at the well, at the table, and at the mountain and so will I. Trust me, my kids know the Bible says homosexuality is sin, but also know how Jesus interreacted with the sinner. You can’t pick and choose what you like about Jesus, your just called to be a representative or physical manifestation of Him to everyone that you interact with. Too many Christians don’t look much like Jesus, but I pray that I and my family do.
What does Jesus actually say and do and what about Paul?
Theologically Jesus “perfected” or gave clarity of the Father to the World. So, what does Jesus say here? Jesus made no explicit statement about Homosexuality. In one regard we think He should have, but we don’t get to decide what we are given. Jesus never said anything explicit about abortion, same-sex marriage, or child molestation. But it would be an incredible claim to conclude from that fact that Jesus’s teaching is irrelevant to our ethical assessment of those issues. The lens of the Bible and Jesus’ message are coherent and in unison. Jesus kept all of the Torah (this is different than rabbinical, man-made law) and asked that we live by his example.
Jesus did speak explicitly about many things such as sexual immorality and the nature of marriage. He denounced the former (e.g., Matt. 5:28; 15:19) and defined the latter according to Genesis 2:24: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh” (Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7–8). Jesus affirmed the covenant.
Some might say that Paul’s teaching applied only to his culture and has little bearing on ours today. One of the first textures of any hermeneutical approach is to first determine the message to the intended audience and how they would have interpreted that message within their culture. Then you decide how and if you can apply it to your personal situation. The “mistake” too many people commit is to attempt to “throw away” or “write off” anything they don’t like on the basis of culture. Theologically and hermeneutically these conversations walk on this ice. Are you throwing away inerrancy and inspiration? It’s true I would likely define inerrancy and inspiration differently than most evangelical Christians would (that series of films on x44 is coming soon); but make no mistake, proper Biblical interpretation doesn’t disregard major thematic messages that are reiterated throughout scripture. A good Theology is working through a consistent agreement within the lens of the Bible.
Jesus and Paul aren’t in a “cage match” or at odds over ethics. To split them is to split the Torah and the message of God to His people. The OT can’t be severed from the New. If you view Jesus as peace-loving, enemy-forgiving, egalitarian, and inclusive with regard to homosexuals and align Paul as war-loving, death penalty–supporting, patriarchal, and exclusionary with regard to homosexuals (these are terrible Pauline views imo) you have some deep-rooted theological issues that I would propose can’t work together under a proper view of the complete word of God. Your theological lens is a mess. I would encourage you to dive deeper to reconcile your thoughts. Dr. Matt and I have gone to a great deal of Research through the Expedition 44 Youtube Channel to show others a better view. I would caution anyone to throw out the black letters of the Bible and/or even position them as subservient to the red letters. They all point to Jesus.
To those that struggle with Homosexuality.
My big question to a Christian struggling with LGBTQ temptation is, “Are you divinely interested in what God’s word says?” You might not accept how Christians in general act today (I don’t either), but are you willing to place your “trust-faith” in Jesus and what He asks of you? Are you interested in what God desires for you and entering into the covenant commitment that He asks of those who follow Him as Disciples?
We all sin and we are all broken as a result of broken relationship with the Lord and the mucked up world. You have been given the chance to be redeemed, to be delivered. Set your face to say, “My heart and core is broken, I wish I weren’t. I can choose to turn my brokenness into sin and live in redemption and freedom in the power of Jesus.” You can choose to live as the Bible asks you and to be consecrated before the Lord. Find a tribe, a community that will walk with you. Find a mentor, be a mentor, seek accountability, get transparent before the Lord and those in covenant with you. Find a church that has a loving scriptural support-based view for sin and be immersed. You can make the commitment, declare the overcoming power of Jesus over your sin, and declare freedom and victory as you are devoted to move into the calling that God has for you.
Dr. Will Ryan
Special thanks to those that contributed to this article in a thought tank: Dr. Matt Mouzakis of X44, Nick Tenhagen, Dr. Phil Molitor, Pastor Steve Thorngate, and Josh Ruud. Please note that they do not necessarily share the view of the author and represent a very diverse mix of theological backgrounds.
Song of Solomon 8:6 says, “Put me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, jealousy is as severe as Sheol; its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the LORD.”
It quickly becomes clear to the attentive reader that the Song of Solomon places sexual desire, passion, and fulfillment under the authority of the “seal.” At the climax of the poem, the woman pleads with the man: “Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm” (Song 8:6). In biblical thought, the heart represents resolute obedience and devotion, while the arm signifies action and strength. Together, they portray a covenant bond—an inseparable unity of intention and practice—anchored in faithful devotion to the Lord.
The Hebrew word translated “seal” is ḥôtām (hotham). In the ancient Near East, a seal was often a carved stone or cylinder that left a raised impression marking ownership, authority, allegiance, and representation. To bear a seal was to act on behalf of the one who owned it. It signified commissioning and identity—an embodied declaration of whom one belonged to.
Interestingly, ḥôtām is a loanword from Egyptian, where it was sometimes associated with what we might broadly call “magic.” While that term can understandably cause discomfort today, this association invites reflection. Many couples describe the deepening intimacy of covenant marriage as “magical,” not because it is mystical in a pagan sense, but because it reflects something beautiful, powerful, and beyond ordinary explanation—a gift once rightly ordered before the Lord but often distorted in modern culture.
The passage also contains a striking reversal. The woman asks to be placed as a seal upon the man, implying that he belongs to her. In the Davidic period, such language would have been culturally unsettling. Yet this “upside-down” logic anticipates the kingdom ethic later revealed by Jesus—where victory comes through humility, authority through surrender, and life through self-giving love. Here, the man entrusts his life to the woman, foreshadowing the greater reality in which believers entrust their lives fully to Christ, embracing a lowly calling within the royal priesthood of the new covenant.
The woman’s request may be paraphrased as a prayer: “Lord, shape me to steward his heart rightly, placing his devotion to You above my own desires. Use me to lead him into fuller obedience, and let me rejoice in my role of belonging wholly to You together.” This posture reflects not only marital faithfulness but also the calling of the Church as the Bride of Christ—living in covenant submission and shared devotion.
The TKC seal draws upon this biblical imagery and bears an abbreviated Hebrew phrase: haʾUrim vəhaTummim (האורים והתומים), translated as “Urim and Thummim.” Over time—particularly during the diaspora and later Greek translations—the precise meaning of these terms was obscured. While Scripture does not explain exactly what the Urim and Thummim looked like or how they functioned, it is clear that the priests used them to discern the will of the Lord, trusting that the outcome was directed by Him.
The Urim and Thummim were associated with the ḥoshen, the breastplate worn by the High Priest and attached to the ephod. Although similar practices in surrounding cultures resembled divination by casting lots, in Israel this act was understood differently. It was not an attempt to manipulate divine power, but a declaration of total dependence and surrendered obedience. The priest laid down his life before the Lord, trusting that God would respond by guiding, directing, and accomplishing His purposes through faithful submission.
What appeared “impossible” or even “magical” to the surrounding nations was, in reality, the fruit of a life wholly given to God. Today, the language of Urim and Thummim expresses the calling and mission of TKC: to cultivate a discipleship culture unmistakably shaped by the power and presence of the Lord—not by human effort or strategy, but by wholehearted devotion to the Kingdom of Jesus.
Recently a pastor friend of over 20 years sent me a text and asked me what I thought of Amos 3:3. I get this sort of thing a lot, and I have to say I am honored by requests such as this and very much enjoy helping someone to gain a better scriptural understanding of a text. Many are surprised when I tell them that the majority of people that ask me for my take on a particular passage are actually pastors. I appreciate the heartfelt desire of those that ask to best understand a text or what the interpretation of the text means to us. I love the multiplicity of the body’s gifting when crafting a sermon. I used to preach a good deal and would nearly always ask for a panel to work through my sermon with me. Usually, the best part of the message came from something added by the panel. There is wealth in the gifting of the community of Jesus.
People regularly reply to my answers and wonder how I came to this, or how I “got all of that” out of the text. Well, this is a lifetime of understanding (that led to a Th.D.) but let me show you a bit of the process. This is a large part of what we teach at Covenant Theological Seminary.
Exegesis is “the process of careful analytical study of the Bible to produce useful interpretations of those passages.” [1] (In Greek this word “exegesis” is derived from ἐξηγέομαι (exegeomai), which means simply to explain.
For most of our readers that think and primarily communicate in English this is important because the Bible wasn’t written or spoken in our native language. We have to translate the biblical languages and then determine what application it may have to us. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary states the goal of exegesis is “to know neither less nor more than the information actually contained in the passage. Exegesis … places no premium on speculation or inventiveness” and “novelty in interpretation is not prized.” [2]
Simply put, exegesis is not about discovering what we think a text means (or want it to mean) but what the biblical author meant. It’s concerned with intentionality—what the author intended his original readers to understand. [3]
My good friend and mentor John Walton would say that the Bible was written “for us, but not to us.” This hermeneutic, recently termed “cognitive environment criticism,”[4] is implicit in Walton’s earlier publications, such as Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (1989) and The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (2000). However, the phrase “for us, but not to us” does not appear in print, as far as we can tell, until 2008 when it is found in the final sentence of his article, fittingly titled, “Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document” (based on a paper presented in January 2004). The phrase (and several variations) subsequently appears throughout Walton’s Lost World volumes and in his Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief (2017).
The part of scripture that we need to interpret comes when we understand that the text means what the author intended to interpret. It may or may not have any application to us today.
Unfortunately, most people do not approach scripture this way. Rather, they often read meaning into a text that may or may not be there. This is called eisegesis and is the opposite of exegesis. We see this too often in sermons, someone stating a point they want to make and then trying to use a scripture or verse to prove their point or position. We sometimes refer to this as proof texting.
Proper exegesis requires context. Many have come up with a plan or path to best understand scripture. X44 tends to lean towards a Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation, that is first understanding the textures of a text and its reception. If this is new to you, I would suggest Vernon K. Robbins book “exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretations.” We have several X44 videos on interpretation.
Naselli [5] offers a similar take by considering these 8 steps: (SPECIAL THANKS TO MY FRIENDS AT LOGOS.COM FOR THE VISUALS, whose software I use nearly every hour.) Logos is likely the best exegetical tool, so I am going to demonstrate how I might use it.
1. Genre
Determine the passage’s style of literature. Is it poetry? Historical narrative? An epistle?
The Bible Books Explorer in the Logos app shows the different genres of Scripture by color coding and allows you to see how each book connects with other books in the Bible.
2. Textual criticism
Study the manuscript evidence to determine the original text’s exact wording.
In the Logos platform, you can look at textual variants to see key differences.
3. Translation
Translate the original language and compare other translations. (This is where a good Bible app comes in handy, especially if you do not know biblical Hebrew or Greek. More on that below.)
With the Text Comparison tool, you can easily see how different Bible translations handle a verse.
4. Greek and Hebrew grammar
Consider how sentences communicate by looking into their original language—words, phrases, and clauses.
With the Exegetical Guide, you can dig into specific words and phrases used in the passage you’re studying.
5. Argument diagram
Trace the author’s logical argument by arcing, bracketing, or phrasing.
Using Canvas, you can highlight powerful words, connect thoughts, and use other methods to mark up or outline the text.
6. Historical-cultural context
Understand the situation in which the author composed the literature and any historical-cultural details that the author mentions or probably assumes.
The Advanced Timeline in Logos 10 allows you to see what else was happening in the world when Malachi was written, for example.Using the Cultural Concepts feature in Logos, you can more easily notice things you might be missing about the time and culture in which a passage was written.
7. Literary context
Understand the role a passage plays in its whole book (and the whole Bible).
Find related passages to and from the passage you’re studying so you can zoom out to the bigger context.
8. Word studies
Unpack key words, phrases, and concepts. You can jump into a Bible word study right from your passage. For example, if you noticed that the ESV says “pleasure” and CSB and NIV say “pleased” in step 3, you can take a closer look at the word.
So now that you are beginning to understand how I, or a theologian thinks about scripture, let me give you a hands-on example. The verse my friend asked about specifically was Amos 3:3 so I will use my response to him to demonstrate an exegesis based off of the FREE tools of Bible Hub available on the internet to anyone. I realize Logos is likely more expensive than most people are willing to invest. (But I continually argue that exegesis should be a large part of every Christian’s life.)
Let’s dive into the text! First let’s just consider some simple Observations:
I would suggest just using a browser and type in the verse you wish to know more about followed by the word “interlinear.” This will likely bring up a Bible Hub link.
Hebrew reads right to left so let’s start with the first word. I would recommend clicking the transliterated word itself first, but also clicking the Strong’s number above it to give you a better root word understanding. In this case we see the English “can walk” is from the Hebrew “halak” which is the common word for “to walk.” However, something neither of these software options will tell you plainly is that “halak” became an idiom in Hebrew metaphorically referring to the Edenic walk or relationship of intimacy that we should be desirous of with the Father. Thats where my 25 years of Theology and training may come in helpful. But let’s not jump to conclusions, that may be inferred, or it may not be. Let’s continue.
Two usually means “two” simply or in plain reading, but it is a cardinal number in Hebrew denoting plurality so that can simply mean “more than one” – so here it has to be interpreted in context of the rest of the scripture. (You will find this in Bible Hub reading the commentary section.) So far these aren’t major implications.
Together is a word of being united linguistically both in Hebrew and in our modern English context. NT Greek would be “of one accord” which you may be more familiar with. This is where you might want to stop and think, is there is a slight connection to using the term halak? Maybe, but the text still doesn’t necessarily say that or give us that.
“Except” here in Hebrew functions like a substantive adverb, it is essentially adding “not” in front of something. We do this regularly in English, turning things into the opposite. (Don’t do that.)
In this particular case, we now arrive to why the original person questions the verse, interpretation gets a bit sketchy for scholars here and this comes out in commentary. The issue is in Hebrew the structure gets strange, the word translated as “unless” or something similar is simply “im” in Hebrew which is used over 700 times to simply mean “if;” but can also function like an interrogative participle which in Hebrew would mean it takes on the notion of “although, except, or however.” Lastly, to make it even more complicated, it is also a contronym in Hebrew, so it strangely can also mean sort of the opposite which would be “truly or surely.” This combined with the substantive adverb in front makes any scholar scratch their head.
It continues to be strange with the last singular word in Hebrew is “ya’ad” which they translate “they are agreed” but this is also unique as in Hebrew it functions as the main verb of the sentence. To make it more complicated, the word is only found two places in scripture here and in Psalm 48:4 where it rather takes a notion of assembly rather than agreement, but the root word is a lot more common which usually means appointed. My point is that none of this really helps us much, the truth is it could be interpreted a couple of different ways.
Amos 3:3 is part of a series of cause-and-effect statements to establish Amos’ right and duty to prophesy. The word in 3:3 which must be dealt with is ya’ad (to agree-KJV); it is a Niphal (passive or reflective verb) verb as I alluded to above. All of these things mean something to me, but they likely do not to you. Of course, you can think through it and likely come to a similar thought, that the point of the verse is that Amos would not have been prophesying had God not called him (after all, Amos was neither a prophet nor a son of a prophet) the same as two people would not be walking together unless they had previously made an appointment to meet each other. We could just leave it there, but a good scholar digs deeper. Let’s see what other scholars think and why.
W. J. Deane, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1950), Vol. XIV, p. 40 writes:
The contents of these verses are not to be reduced to the general thought, that: a -prophet could no more speak without a divine impulse than any other effect could take place without a cause. There was certainly no need for a long series of examples, such as we have In very. 3-6, to substantiate or illustrate the thought, which a reflecting hearer would hardly have disputed, that there was a connection between cause and effect. The examples are evidently selected with the view of showing that the utterances of the prophet originate with God. This is obvious enough In vers. 7,8. The first clause, ‘Do two men walk together, without having agreed as to their meeting?’ (no’ad, to betake one’s sell to a place, to meet together at an appointed place’or an appointed time; compare Job ii:11, Josh. xi.5, Neh. vi.2; not merely to agree together) contains something more than the trivial truth, that two persons do not take a walk, together without a previous arrangement. The two who walk together are Jehovah and the prophet (Cyril); not Jehovah and the nation, to which the judgment is predicted. . . . Amos went as prophet to Samaria or Bethel, because the Lord had sent him thither to preach judgment on the sinful kingdom.”
Carl Friedrich Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1951), p. 260 says:
“The ‘two’ are God’s judgments and the prophet’s word. These do not coincide by mere chance, no more than two persons pursue in company the same end without previous agreement. The prophet announces God’s judgment because God has commissioned him; the prophet Is of one mind with God, therefore the Lord is with him and confirms his words.
I also came across an interesting article when researching that shows Leroy Garrett making a claim that this verse represents a biblical reasoning for “unity in diversity”. I don’t see that in the exegesis above.
So, let’s get back to where we started. What did this text mean to the intended audience? I think we need to let this passage mostly represent its intended audience. Personally, I’m not sure there’s much if any application to us here today, but that’s just me! I think we need to let the primary message to the intended audience be the primary message in most cases. But perhaps there is a takeaway for us, that is what everyone is looking for right? Let’s consider that.
If this text in Amos supports anything remotely connected to present-day relationships, the context would show us it would be the necessity of agreeing to meet with a brother/sister in order to walk in unity. In the first century and before most “church” settings were small; there really isn’t a context for the mega church setting we are most all in today. Most situations either address a small intimate group described as a family (which meant those in your circle more than blood relation) or it mean communal Israel. Biblical diversity can be beautiful, but it can also cause us to be “out of harmony.” In a bigger picture, we do not have to agree on everything in order to walk together, even though as Christians we will agree on many things and certainly on the authority of Scripture to take us further in our understanding of God’s truth.
This is where things often get miscommunicated, because as brothers and sisters in Christ, we are in a covenant together “walking” as in the garden might apply to our most intimate relationships, spouses, family, and perhaps our inner circle; but this verse seems to better point towards communal unity in Israel, the big church. And let’s not forget that when Amos was penned, Israel was totally messed up and a far cry from Eden. Thats should adjust your application to your situation.
But I don’t think anyone will argue that we need to be in agreement with God or moving in that direction without imagining that we have arrived at a point where we can demand agreement from others with us. We may not agree on some things that are peripheral to maintaining and manifesting the biblical unity that exists in Christ. If you “swim” in a tribe of other intimate relational covenant fish you’re going to be in a better place each day.
Yet one thing I think this verse shows us that is timeless is that we should understand that a disagreeing brother/sister should not automatically be equated with a disobedient brother/sister. It is far too facile to label disagreement as disobedience and I think this has had devastating consequences on our church.
When anyone starts to think that God’s way is their way and if someone disagrees with them than they disagree with God; they open up a contentious entanglement with the world.
Can we agree to disagree and yet agree to walk together in some measure in the work of God and in the enjoyment of fellowship or at least rejoice at what God is doing in the lives and ministries of others without becoming their theological critics? On the other hand, let’s discuss it in love! Let’s return to the hillside meetings of the first century searching for truth for most of our day.
One true measure of our spiritual maturity and fruit may be whether we will agree to walk together in true obedience and genuine fellowship in spite of our disagreements. Exegesis should come as a circular result of searching for what God has for you and those in your sphere, as God’s word is revealed and applied.
Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, “Exegesis” (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT), 1992.
Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, “Exegesis” (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT), 1992.
D. Fee, Handbook to New Testament Exegesis (1993), 27.
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (second edition, 2018), 11, 18; Walton, Old Testament Theology for Christians, 16.
Naselli, Andy. New Testament Exegesis: Understanding and Applying the New Testament (Course), (Lexham Press, Bellingham, WA), 2016
“You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.’” Leviticus 19:2 NASB
Another amazing TRES DIAS RENEWAL weekend! Wow! This was amazing. If you have never experienced one of these with me- with us. Please ask. I invite you. They are every spring and every fall.
At one point in the weekend Pastor Matt and I were commenting on the exegesis of a passage in the morning chapel and the word “perfect” came up. We went on to share that the Biblical definition of perfect is not what the modern view usually means. I have taught on this a lot in x44. Biblical perfection means the journey (or expedition) to be complete or holy as God is holy. To take on the image of Christ – Christoformity.
Today the word translated perfect seems to be the source of condemnation and guilt. How we (the modern church) have abused this verse. We see this quote from Leviticus in Matthew (5:48 in the Greek version, not exactly what it says in Hebrew). We have been taught that Jesus preached that the goal of a religious life is holiness and that anything less than perfect holiness is sin, missing the mark; and as that is true – we are also taught to not wallow in the filth. Don’t live in it, you have been set free! Oh, what trauma we have caused for all who fell under that burden of continual condemnation! Because we didn’t pay attention to the Hebrew grammar or the meaning of qādôš. (The English transliteration is Kadosh.) Don’t live that way! You are free from this shame! You have been redeemed, renewed, and completely set free, own it and live it!
The definition of qādôš generically means to be “set apart.” That was a theme of a tres dias weekend a couple years ago, but has sort of stuck with the community as an ongoing metaphor for life, as it should be. When you dive in to study this word, you find that the same word was generic word that could mean set apart for anything, in fact a regular use of the term was that an animal sacrifice would be “set apart” for death, or prisoners were “set apart” waiting for their sentence. As it does mean this in the ancient world, words often take on a deeper biblical meaning or find a second skin, per se in redemptive thinking. In this way, the word qādôš means spiritually to be completely “devoted.” We are dead to sin that we might be alive in Christ which is characterized by devotion.
That means this crucial passage in Leviticus should be read as God’s desire for reciprocity or multiplicity. We are to be as devoted to Him as He is to us. It’s not about being perfect. It’s about being committed. A heartset to be all in.
John Walton (my Hebrew mentor from my early days at Moody Bible Institute) points out that the verb tense in Leviticus 19:2 is an imperfect form/indicative, not an imperative.[1] I know I am speaking Greek to everyone here, actually Hebrew… but hang in there with me. You can do this! I am going to shepherd you to a new level of depth before the Lord. Understanding the grammar has a startling implication.
God is not commanding platonic perfection or even holiness. Walton suggests that the verse should be read, “You are holy because I am holy.” In other words, according to Walton, this is a declaration of the character of His people, not a command for moral improvement. It is not something we achieve but something we are, based entirely on the declaration of God. God declares Israel qādôš because Israel is “HIS” in the same way that today you are “HIS”, you are God’s recreated “holy ones”, the very image of him to a broken world. You are the very representation (or manifestation) of Jesus to those that come in contact with you. You are Holy because God is in you. Your room is the sacred temple of the holy spirit. That is your sanctuary, the body of Christ. Does your house look holy to others? Do you need to clean your room?
This view of holiness and exegesis of these verses has some amazing truths that I want you to see. God is not judging us on some standard of what the philosopher Plato defined as perfection which is what we think of the word today. Holiness (perfection) is not commanded, having a heart to be made complete is. Devotion (the real idea of holiness) is an imperfect verb, that is, a continuous progressive activity not yet completed (an expedition of pursuing holiness and praying that you might be found faithful). It is here and now, but also te be attained. It’s what we are while we are on the way. “On the way” toward YHVH is what qādôš is all about.
If you were on this last Men’s tres dias weekend, Dave Donehay gave you a verse towards the middle of the page in his notes for the study talk- rollo. It was Isaiah 30:21. You will notice a few verses before in verse 16 Isaiah quotes Exodus 34:6 (again, it is a better quote when read in Hebrew, you can hardly tell it is a quote in English but don’t get me started) where God gives the description of himself as gracious and compassionate. This is what I shared in the tres dias weekend closura. The Hebrew Idiom for Hesed and Shalom means a balance in living – Chanan/Racham embodies a life that looks like Jesus: loyalty, faithfulness, mercy, compassion, love, grace, devotion, sacrifice, and allegiance. (HESED)
A few verses later you come to the verse that Dave shared, Isaiah 30:21 which has another Hebrew Idiom for living in devotion to this life. If you are a STAR WARS person this is going to blow you away- The Hebrew words are “Zeh Hadderek” which is translated, “THIS IS THE WAY” – walk in it. Sound familiar? Anyone finish the book yet this week?
You are hereby exempt from the burden of holy perfection! That must feel good, but don’t thank me, thank God!
Live redeemed today! Claim it, take a step in the right direction. One small step at a time. Align your trajectory. Walk straighter with Jesus. Avoid the “cowpath” of life. Let the Holy Spirit deliver you into a better walk of life. This is the way.
Some of this article has been misinterpreted, misread, and taking certain phrases out context by those who disagree with us. We have sought to clarify some of these items that have been taken out of context with some footnotes below explaining intent on certain points along with our logic for using them. We apologize if the verbiage of this article has upset or offended some who hold to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). We are not diminishing anything in Christ’s death but aim to give a better explanation of the healing actions of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, while bringing up some of the scriptural and logical inconsistencies of PSA.
As a theologian Easter is the hardest time of year for me. Poor theology is rampant from social media posts to good-willed pastors and praise and worship songs sung being belted out with no reserve. Most of people’s theological understanding likely comes from what they have been told or taught casually without really thinking about it for themselves. People truly desire to have good theology. In fact, I find well intentioned people that often think they are “theological” taking on some pretty “bad theology.” I truly believe most Christians are well intentioned in their fervor, they just haven’t been taught or presented with a better consideration in regard to Christ’s “work” on the cross and usually can’t identify the problems within what I would consider to be a poor theological framework. Unfortunately, some of the most respected pastors and Christian leaders have fallen into this snare.
Some of what I am going to share may be a surprise to many of you and some of these points are major issues in your understanding of who God is. They are things that people have wrongly attributed to “ALL OF CHRISTIANITY” and in some cases have been the responsible agent of people even leaving the faith.
Here is a brief non exhaustive survey of the main issues within “easter” theology. I think if you consider yourself a fervent follower of Christ you should care and desire to know better about how to understand the way your Jesus loved you and gave his life in a beautiful but gruesome plan for our redemption and why. Let’s focus on the resurrection!
Every year, Christians from around the world gather for worship on Pascha or Resurrection Sunday, in orthodoxy the Holy week is the final day of a weeklong commemoration of the story of Jesus’ final days in the city of Jerusalem leading up to his crucifixion and resurrection. I have a hard time even using the word Easter to describe this time, resurrection is better. Here is another article on why I feel that way.
Court Room Language& PSA
I think the main problem with most westerner’s Easter theology is that it is usually framed around a theological view of atonement called Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). Penal Substitution Atonement is one of the various views (7-12) of atonement theory that is held primarily by Reformed and Calvinist theologians and some Christians around Easter that don’t know any better. The early church and most of Christianity never thought this way. In fact, the legal view of the cross didn’t really come around until 1871 with Charles Hodge who built it off of unformulated ideas from John Calvin and other reformers. John Calvin was a lawyer, and saw the world through the court room. I truly believe in several hundred years Christians are going to look back at the last couple hundred years of “rampant reformed theology” being accepted as the norm and probably laugh.
However, at the same time, I don’t want to take those who believe in PSA lightly or come off with a condescending attitude for anyone who thinks this way. I have some very good friends that have been through Bible school and still hold these views. But I think most of them realize it is a “hard road” to plow. Some of them feel like they have 4 years or more invested at a “reformed” leaning college in learning how to try to reconcile or justify this way of thinking, how can they abandon it. Most people don’t know they are getting into this until they are already there. The Bible college I attended in my youth has nearly turned completely reformed since I attended, and you may remember has caused a huge shake up for them in the last 10 years. But those on the outside looking in don’t often know their hardships were caused by gravitating towards reformed theological notions causing nearly 80% of their professors to leave over the course of 20 years. I have always thought that way of holding onto to something must be hard for people. I know it may seem like a new or tough mountain to climb but experiencing truth is freeing, a true summit experience before the Lord. I also think it is worth pointing out that the great majority of Christian scholars and theologians don’t hold to reformed theology as I will point out, the top theologians in the world (and especially since the time of Christ) do not adhere to this kind of thinking. (Unfortunately, some of the most common household names of current Christianity to take on a good deal of these thoughts such as John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, Matthew Henry and more recently John Macarthur, Erwin Lutzer, R.C. Sproul, and James White to name likely the most prominent.)
A better framework for Jesus’ Atoning work on the cross sees the Bible through a covenant. Covenants are about relationships built on trust and always working towards restoration when broken. Laws and contracts are built on mistrust and result in retribution when broken. I will touch more on this at the end.
Unfortunately, too many people don’t realize that this way of thinking (PSA) is primarily Reformed, and I find a lot of non-reformed Christians and pastors framing atonement this way and it doesn’t really fit or agree with the rest of their theology and often even their denominations (particularly for a spirit led theology.) Over the details of this view, many may quibble, (for instance as I will get to, most reformed thinkers also believe in ECT but not all of them) but we are often told that Jesus died in order to save sinners from the wrath of God. In other words, he was a substitutionary sacrifice—he died in our place—to appease the Father’s justice, honor, and wrath. The story of how we get to such a place where we need such a sacrifice has been framed in this way:
God created humankind in his image and saw that it was good. Then, humanity sinned and experienced a “fall.” This created a huge problem, one that finite creatures simply could not make up for. Why? Because God’s justice and honor are such that only a payment of infinite proportions could make atonement. So, God, in his infinite wisdom, sent himself in the form of a Son—one truly human—in order to be sacrificed to himself so that his justice and honor could be upheld. Thus, he fills the conundrum of needing an infinite payment from finite humans. Now, those who accept the blood sacrifice could be forgiven their sins. The rest? The wrath of the infinite Father forever abides on them.
Essays and books have been written on the problems associated with this way of thinking, and X44 has several videos that address these in detail, so let me try to keep this brief. There are several things that need to be considered in this view that will influence the rest of your theology that you likely haven’t given a lot of time to. I pray today is the day for you. You may have even thought this type of thinking was good theology or maybe even the only theology of the cross. Nether is true in our opinion.
Let’s start with the idea is that God is a debt collector. This way of thinking would suggest that a debt was accrued, and payment has to be made in order for the father’s forgiveness and mercy to flow forth into the world. This idea doesn’t agree with Jesus’ definition of forgiveness. The two ideas can’t coexist. It also doesn’t make sense. Who is the debt owed to? Does Jesus owe God? Does God owe something to Satan to buy us? Do we owe God something? Isn’t the salvation that Jesus offers a “FREE GIFT?” If it is truly free nothing needs to be paid off or purchased. When Moses took the Israelites out of Egypt, he wasn’t buying them or purchasing them, he wasn’t negotiating with a terrorist, HE FREED THE SLAVES… they weren’t in turn made slaves again, that wouldn’t make any sense, the plan was for total freedom.To frame the gift Jesus gives as something owed and needing to be bought or purchased back nullifies the free gift given.
The second issue is the way in which original sin gets interpreted by folks in the PSA camp. Indeed, their understanding of humanity’s fall exposes God as a retributive punisher. This is framed as the punishment that Jesus goes through is the punishment that all mind kind should have gotten. This is far reaching into your theology affecting many different areas. (I don’t believe that little Suzy who gets killed by a car at 8 years old and never prayed to accept the plan of salvation will burn – or be tortured in hell forever.) In the reformed camps that is how PSA continues to or develops further into the idea of Eternal Conscious Torment; that we are all damned to hell to be eternally forever tormented for essentially Adam’s sin. To that end, the punishment Jesus took was the punishment we deserve. The lashings, the flogging, the mocking, all of it –something God would do to us or have done to us if Jesus hadn’t taken the beating for us. Those of us who accept the transaction are spared. This view is terrible in my opinion. It is so far away from the story of God’s infinite love, grace, and mercy for us. It is so far off the complete story of God’s unending, unstoppable, un-relenting, pursuing love to reclaim us despite all of our shortcomings and failures. Jesus has no desire to torture you. If that (the desire to torture you) is your church’s view of what God wants to do to you, my advice is to run to a better church with a better view of God’s beautiful plan for your life. [1] Some would assert that this essentially presents God as an utter monster.
PSA also puts (or pits) the trinity against each other. In one corner, you have the wrath of God (going by a more modern definition), which needs the shedding of blood in order to forgive sins (Hebrews 9:22). In the other corner, you have Jesus, who forgave freely (Matthew 9:2; 18:22; Luke 23:34; John 8:11; 20:19–23). In other words, Jesus forgave even though blood hadn’t been spilled. One major issue with this is that the New Testament is fairly clear that both the Father and the Son are, in nature, eternally the same (Matthew 11:27; John 1:18; 4:34; 5:19–20; 6:38, 46; 10:29; 12:49; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 13:8). That is essentially the doctrine of the trinity. Most of PSA also views God departing from Jesus at the cross, Jesus clearly wasn’t separated from God which would be a major trinitarian problem. If you need more on this, here is a video.
The last PSA (major) problem is wrath, or their more modern definition of what that means. We believe in the wrath of God but the biblical definition of wrath is God handing people over to their own device. When God handed Israel over to reap what they sowed they were conquered and enslaved. God didn’t torture them through their aggressors, He simply removed his hand of providence and protection from them. PSA has redefined wrath into a modern version of torture making God a wrath monster and a slave master. [2] God as a sovereign all powerful entity essentially become not only the author of good but also the author of Evil.
THINKING MORE CLEARLY: Matt and I (and nearly every theologian we quote) typically lean towards a Christus Victor view of atonement (but also see some value in other theories such as McKnight would say) partially because it deals a blow to the principalities, powers, and authorities of the fallen world as being defeated by Christ’s atoning work (a Deuteronomy 32 view). PSA leaves the powers still reigning as it is focused on simply the individual and their failures. That’s a problem. We know at the cross Christ is victorious, reclaims the power of life over death, sets the captives free, and shackles the fallen spiritual beings. We think that’s pretty important!
Substitution Language
To be clear, Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Substitutionary Atonement should be handled separately or as different theological perspectives. Most theologians don’t believe in PSA but do adhere to a basic understanding of substitution. As we have no place for PSA, we do have a slight consideration that Jesus serves as a simple substitute on the cross for us. Most scholars are going to give credence to some form of Jesus being a substitute for us. However, I would contend that we shouldn’t put too much emphasis on any thoughts of substitutionary kind of thinking. Many of the problems of “PSA” are also going to be an issue for simple substitutional thinking as well. For instance, you might notice that NT Wright certainly will not give much or any credence to PSA, but also is hesitant to affirm or oppose the simple idea of substitution. I think Scot McKnight does the best job here by framing the atonement theories as each possibly having some merit but not necessarily putting too much value in completely adhering to any of them as a complete doctrine. In this way, I can agree that in a basic sense Christ gave fully of himself on our behalf to accomplish somethings -life- that we can’t accomplish on our own. But is that really substitution? That is my hesitancy in using the word to describe what Jesus does for us. The word itself isn’t really found anywhere in the Bible and there certainly aren’t any passages that simply frame Christs work that way. If it was meant to have been communicated clearly this way the scripture would have described it significantly better in that way and certainly would have used that exact word. I think in a better lens of theology there are more proper terms to describe what God does such as kippur in a more sacrificial sense of the atonement of Jesus. We shy away from using the term substitute or “in my place” because it opens the door for PSA and doesn’t really seem to adequately fit what Jesus does on the cross as well as other biblical words do.
Debt and Ransom Language
Much of the above PSA conversation is also connected or overflows into debt or ransom language, here are some further bullet points of consideration:
-God doesn’t need to appease his wrath with a blood sacrifice. God regularly forgives people without demanding a sacrifice. In the Old Testament he did ask for “atonement” as a stop gap to until the Messiah came to keep Israel on a holy trajectory relationally with God. It is what was asked but not what was/is necessarily needed. What was/is needed is Jesus and nothing else could actually suffice.
-“If God the father needs someone to “pay the price” for sin, does the Father ever really forgive anyone? Think about it. If you owe me a hundred dollars and I hold you to it unless someone pays me the owed sum, did I really forgive your debt? It seems not, especially since the very concept of forgiveness is about releasing a debt — not collecting it from someone else.” (Greg Boyd)
-There is no Biblical framework theologically to say that sin and guilt can be literally transferred from one party to another. Which is a problem with “Adam” in regard to the way Calvinism handles its pillars of beliefs (TULIP) – Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. Someone being punished in the place of another is against the Torah (Deut. 24:16; Ex. 32:30-34; Ezek. 18:18-22).
-If the just punishment for sin is eternal conscious torment hell (as most Christians have traditionally and tragically believed), how does Jesus’ several hours of suffering and his short time in the grave pay for it? Instead of a Great sacrifice, wouldn’t the idea of one person dying and being enough for every person throughout all of time actually be a really “weak” or cheap sacrifice? [3] If Satan and God are making a deal, then God really got a great deal there. I mean if you asked me to go through what Jesus did so three or 4 people (especially my own family) wouldn’t have to -I would, OFF COURSE, anyone would – not just Jesus. But saying that Christ’s life can be traded for everyone’s lives actually doesn’t really make sense in framing it as an adequate payment or debt (if that is what you’re trying to prove). In fact, that way of thinking makes zero sense. It makes what Christ did actually really undervalued or cheap. (“Have I got a deal for you!” kind of stuff.) If one human person (completely underserving) suffers immensely for a day and dies in severe punishment is that enough to “BUY” eternal life for everyone? If you think that way you have missed the major message of the cross.
–Furthermore, if Christ is actually taking what should be coming to us according to PSA (being tormented in unending hell) wouldn’t that mean He would or should be damned to eternity in hell according in the trade? Yet He isn’t, He rises in 3 days. He didn’t get what we were to have said to deserve -so the trade didn’t really work. Again, this kind of thinking doesn’t logically hold up.
– If it’s true that God’s wrath must be appeased by sacrificing his own Son to settle a debt of some sort, then don’t we have to conclude that pagans who have throughout history sacrificed their children to appease the gods’ wrath had the right intuition. I don’t think God sold His son to pay a debt. God didn’t crucify Jesus in some deal, humanity and the systems and powers of a fallen earth put Jesus on the cross. Some would call that way of thinking cosmic child abuse. [4]
Isaiah 53 references & language
We often read that Jesus died as our substitute or even that it was God’s will to “crush and bruise” him (Isa 53:10), I actually don’t disagree with this, but again, I think there are better words to describe what is taking place Biblically. (For instance, I have no problem saying by his stripes we are healed.) Isaiah 53 has sparked debate amongst Jewish and evangelical Christians for many years. Most scholars would admit that they don’t know exactly who the passage refers to in its original context. There are too many references that DO NOT equate to Jesus in Isa 53 making it problematic, yet some of it seems to point to the Messiah. According to basic rules of hermeneutical textures of interpretation the primary context of the passage would not have been Jesus. Can we theologically in hindsight make these prophetic connections to Jesus? I think the answer is yes, but I think we need to be more careful with how we use them. Modern Rabbis of Judaism and evangelical theologians alike, believe that the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 refers perhaps to Israel, or to Isaiah himself, or even Moses or another of the Jewish prophets. (Jesus does embody the story of Israel, so there is a bit of a connection worth mentioning here.) In theology we say there is someone that the text speaks of primarily, but that person also serves as a foreshadow of what is to come. In backwards view the passage is nearly undeniably Messianic, but at the time of its writing I doubt anyone would have been reading that into it though. With New Testament eyes we may be afforded to read that back into the texts prophetically, but again I caution about getting too comfortable with that sort of exegesis. It is better to dwell on the primary interpretive message in most cases of theology.
Most scholars also recognize the identification of two voices in Isa 53. The crowd is viewing the scene as if God is punishing the servant as if God was pleased to crush him (“We considered Him”); but the voice of reality shows them that their own actions (transgressions actually) are against the servant (not God.) God heals the servant (LXX) and brings healing to others through Him. This is the same message that we hear over and over in the gospel presentations in Acts, “you killed the Messiah, but God raised Him up.”
Dwell on the Victory – for a better Theology
So what is a better view of the atonement and resurrection? It is actually pretty simple. (I usually find simple truth is freeing) -The victory of the cross is framed by primarily 3 things:
Sin- not as a legal status but as a disease that has infected humanity. It is OT kippur or purity sacred language- Atonement purged sacred space of the forces and stain of death (Blood [force of life] covered over death). At its root, sin, is idolatry, and our immortal acts are the symptoms of the disease. You can’t punish a disease out of someone, the need to be completely healed. That is what Jesus offers and makes available through the cross and resurrection for us.
Death- death is the consequence of living by our own wisdom (trying to be like God without God). It is the results of being separated from the tree of Life- God’s own life. This was a consequence of a loving father that should be framed by not wanting his children to live forever in a state of sin rather than a legal consequence. We are being reclaimed and made new so that we may reenter into the deep relational communion that was lost and the entire Bible is the story of how it is being pursued and reclaimed.
The Principalities and Powers– these are the systems and rulers (spiritual) of the fallen world that held humanity captive. The cross is framed by the exodus and is a rescue and victory from slavery. We are delivered and now can live free here and now for Jesus to build a culture of “all in” intimacy through discipleship with our father to covenant with those that follow the way of the cross, resurrection, and ascension into new life, community, and Kingdom.
The Cross is not a transaction but a transformation!
The cross and resurrection of Jesus was a victory over the world that we might be empowered by Him to become the recreated spiritual beings returning to the Edenic plan of walking with the Father bringing order from chaos and being His representatives or ambassadors of light to a dark world as we seek to reclaim the lost into light introducing God to the people and the people to God. Eventually as a royal priesthood of believers we will reinhabit a new heaven and earth in the unending presence of God’s holiness. Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross gives life to us here and now and throughout the ages, reaching both forward and backwards in His kingdom.
written by Dr. Ryan and Matt
______________________________________________
[1] The key phrase in this is “desire”. We are not telling people to leave their church if you disagree with a certain part of their theology. If your church says that one of God’s primary desires is to torture people in wrath then it depicts something different than the loving father of Luke 15:11-32 who does not have a desire to torture his son in order to provide some payment to him for squandering the inheritance. In fact, the father absorbs the payment of the inheritance that the son squandered and he forgives freely upon his return. God’s desire is that all would come to repentance.
[2] We do not believe that God is a slave master or wrath monster. But some ways of explaining atonement depict God in a way that emphasizes his anger/wrath as an eternal attribute. We believe in God’s wrath but on the day of wrath in which those who rebel against God are storing up wrath (Rom 2:5). Wrath is either satisfied or it is not. All the wrath verses in the NT depict wrath in the end and never connect it to the cross.
[3]The issue here is whether Eternal torment is the payment God requires (if even a payment is requires). If it is then the scales do no line up. But If death is the thing being dealt with (not payment or satisfaction of guilt), and Jesus is the display of God’s dealing with Death (not His punishment on the Son) then this makes sense. Heb 2:14-15 shows how Jesus was like us in every way in order to render death and the devil powerless and free us from the fear of death. When we have the wrong foundation for Jesus’ death it changes its meaning. The early church Father understood it this way: “The unassumed is unhealed” (Gregory of Nyssa), “He became what we are that he might make us what He is” (Athanasius of Alexandria). That is the point of this statement in the article. We do not consider the meaning of Christ’s death to be weak or cheap when interpreted properly. He dealt with death, as the wages of sin (Do not read eternal torment into this), in order to restore us to our original purpose. This is healing not retribution.
[4] The key word here is “some”… these are not our words but the way some think. We do not think this. The idea of wrath being taken out on the innocent is against God’s law in the Torah and the Old Testament, and so is sin transference, yet is central to PSA’s view of the cross within a framework of and Augustinian/Reformed doctrine of Original Sin. See:
Deut. 1- Children are not culpable for the sins of the pervious generation
Ezek. 18:19-20 Sins of the fathers are not transferred to the sons. The sons are not to be punished in the place of the father.
Deut 24:16/2 Kings 14:6- everyone should be put to death for their own sin. Sin is not transferrable to the innocent.
Exodus 32:30-34: Moses tries to give himself as an innocent substitute and God refuses to take it (against Torah)
Proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.
Proverbs 17:26 To impose a fine on a righteous man is not good, nor to strike the noble for their uprightness
God condemns unrighteousness and hates those who spill innocent blood (Prov. 6:16-17, 2 Kings 24:3-4)
Some have commented on how certain atheists use of this phrase and maybe they have the right instincts when they notice that the innocent being killed in the place of the guilty is unjust and against scripture (and some appeal to the fact it is against natural law) making God an unjust judge for doing this. This maybe the image of God within them affirming these notions.
This week we’ve been thinking about a story of Jesus’ trial that is in all 4 gospels. All the gospels include the story of a choice being given between Jesus and a man named Barabbas. Likewise, this week we’ve seen comments from Marjorie Taylor Green and a person on Trump’s legal team comparing the arraignment of President Donald Trump to the arrest of Jesus in the gospels. There have even been Christians in our circles that have shared these and this connection on social media- some positively and some negatively. In some cases, the term “evangelical” has become better known by its connection with a certain political party and Christian Nationalism instead of or better than being recognized as the ones who are about sharing the Good News of Jesus. Because of this many Christians shy away from the term evangelical. This “nationalistic” version of evangelical Christianity has been coopted with the enticement of political power and what it can give them (and force on others).
This brings into question many things X44 has written about in the past. Who is your king? Can you serve two masters? Are you more loyal to the kingdom of Jesus or the nation of America? Has American nationalism become a religion? Should Christians vote? Should you vote for a party because they represent more Christian values than the other party even if the people representing the party are far from Christian or even represent good morals? Should you only be aligned with people in the same covenant relationship in the Lord (are you unequally yoked?) These are all great questions and as X44 typically doesn’t get overly political, (we try to focus on Jesus’ kingdom only), but occasionally these more political questions arise. Today we are writing to question our/your political consideration based on a better theology or cultural understanding of the Bible.
So as usual, we are going to be far more theological than political in this article. The point of this is not to bash Trump or smear him, it’s actually not really about Him personally at all, it’s about an ideology that is behind Him and within many in the evangelical church.
Let’s better examine the story of Jesus and Barabbas.
Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the people any one prisoner whom they wanted. At that time they were holding a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. So when the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you? Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” For he knew that because of envy they had handed Him over. While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, “Have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him.” But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to put Jesus to death. But the governor said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Crucify Him!” And he said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they kept shouting all the more, saying, “Crucify Him!”
When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified. (Matthew 27:15-26- see also Mark 15:6–15; Luke 23:18–25; John 18:39–19:16)
All 4 gospels tell us that was Pilate’s custom to release a prisoner during Passover. What was this? It was to pacify the people because there had been many riots and revolutions that had started during the time of Passover in previous years. The Passover was the remembrance of the Hebrew’s liberation from slavery and from the evil empire of Egypt.
On this Passover preparation day there is a choice between two prisoners, you might even say it was a choice between two Jesus’.
Who was Barabbas?
Some of our manuscript traditions have “Jesus Barabbas” and not just Barabbas. The gospel writers are trying to make a distinction between two types of messiah the crowd gets to choose between. Now, who was Barabbas? Movies like Passion of the Christ have done us a disservice here depicting Jesus Barabbas as a deranged serial killer but let’s look at what the gospel writers actually say about him: Matthew says he was a “notorious prisoner”, Mark and Luke speak about Barabbas being involved in a “riot” (stasis- the word for “stand”) in which he committed murder. John 18:40 points out that Barabbas was a bandit (lestes), which is the word Josephus, an ancient historian, always used when talking about revolutionaries and the zealots. The zealots were a group that wanted to presumably “take back Israel for God,” or just cited this as an excuse for insurrection. Barabbas was not some Jeffery Dahmer, he was more like their George Washington, William Wallace, or Che Guevara.
Why Barabbas instead of Jesus?
Since the Maccabean revolt (167-160 BC) there had been many revolts and stands against Rome and none were successful. The Jews were looking for another Judah Maccabees (means Judah the Hammer), who overthrew the Seleucid Greeks. This is why days before the crowds were shouting “hosanna”. This phrase has come to simply mean something like “hallelujah” today but in reality, it meant “Lord save us NOW”. It wasn’t a necessarily religious rendering of the term, as it was often adapted by insurrectionist, in fact it was likely more closely rendered to taking the Lord’s name in vain. The palm branches were a politically loaded symbol. It was the flag per se of the revolutionaries in the days of the Maccabees. They were asking Jesus to be their new Judah Maccabee and “stand” against the Romans like Barabbas. This is why you may read (or better, should read) a subtle adversity in the Biblical texts of the triumphal entry. Jesus didn’t come into Jerusalem riding on a war horse with pride but on the colt of a donkey with humility. Even as Jesus was entering the city, he was crying over the scene saying, “you don’t know the things that make for peace” (Luke 19:42). I can only imagine the crowd, probably saying something like, “What the Hell is this?” As I even feel uncomfortable writing the phrase, it would have fit their mantra well. But they didn’t care, if there was any chance of this person starting a revolt, they were going to cheer it on. I am sure some of them even wondered if he had the power to summon the angels to war, which I am sure they would have loved to join in battle with. That is what the world was looking for in a Mesiah, but that wasn’t the plan of Jesus. His plan actually looked opposite of that plan, backwards, or upside down to what the revolutionaries wanted.
When it came to the prisoner exchange, the choice was obvious for the crowd. They wanted Barabbas. He was a “real” mercenary with a proven track record, not this “peace loving preacher riding a donkey.” But there is more to this story and it is found in the names. Jesus means “salvation” and Barabbas means “son of abba” or “son of the Father”. The crowd has the choice between Jesus “the son of the father” or Jesus “the son of God” (the Messiah/King). Would “salvation” come through their definition of political and national victory (taking back Israel for God) or through the way of Jesus the Christ, who laid down his life, with radical self-giving and co-suffering love? Christlike peacemaking does not come by the way of Rome, the way of the Maccabee, or the way of the Zealot revolutionary, this is what it meant to be the son of their fathers. But Jesus’ was showing them a new way- the upside down kingdom way.
It has been assumed that Barabbas was a prominent figure in a movement resisting the Roman empire. It has even been posited that he belonged to the Sicarii (literally “dagger men”), a group of radical Jewish patriots who pledged to murder Roman rulers and their collaborators whenever possible. Barabbas’ supporters would have perceived him to be a freedom fighter.
Robert H. Gundy (1.) (b. 1932) suspects that knowing the specifics of Barabbas’ crimes would only distract from the narrative. This is the more traditional way that we think of Jesus. He was Innocent and Barrabas wasn’t. Gundy frames that way of thinking:
The placement of ἐν τη στάσει, “in the insurrection,” and φόνον, “murder,” before the verb calls attention to the criminality of Barabbas and his fellow prisoners. Against this foil Jesus’ innocence stands out in bold relief: Barabbas deserves to be bound and crucified; Jesus does not. Mark avoids obscuring this apologetic contrast with details concerning the insurrection. (Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, 926)
As the text leaves his sins to the imagination, Barabbas becomes an abstract but more relatable figure – At first, it seems that he is the one who deserves the punishment that Jesus receives (Almost as if Jesus takes his place), but as we dive more into the descriptions of both Jesus figures, we are actually going to find that they are equally “guilty” of insurrection in the eyes of Rome. In one sense Jesus was morally “innocent” but in another (nationalistic) sense, he will be deemed equally guilty. You will notice Gundy points out that the Greek may point to the criminality of Barrabas; but to be clear the Greek does not point to innocence or guilt in the description of Jesus. (I would theologically assert that you would have to read Jesus’ innocence into this text as Gundy seems to do, despite making a statement that Marks apologetics don’t allow that way of thinking.) I usually like Gundy, but this one leaves me scratching my head. (He allows the hermeneutic “law” for Barabbas but doesn’t interpret the Greek in the same hermeneutic when approaching the text with Jesus.)
In Hebrew names often tell who some is historically. The name Barabbas means “son of a father.” John R. Donahue (2.) (b. 1933) dissects:
The proper name here consists of two Aramaic elements: bar meaning “son” and ’abba’ meaning “father.” The derivation from Bar-Rabban (“son of the master”) is less likely. There were rabbis known as “Bar-Abba,” and the practice of using bar plus the father’s name is witnessed in the cases of Simon bar Jona (for Peter; see Matthew 16:17) and Simeon Bar Kokhba (or Kosiba) around 132-135 C.E. Some manuscripts supply Barabbas with the first name “Jesus” in Matthew 27:16. Since one would expect him to have a first name and since it is unlikely that early Christians would have created the name “Jesus” for him there may well be a historical basis for this tradition. In either case the choice presented to the crowd—between Jesus of Nazareth (the real “Son of the Father”) and (Jesus) Barabbas—is rich in irony and in theological significance. (Donahue, The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina), 432)
Joel Marcus (3.) (b. 1951) analyzes:
Some texts of Matthew 27:16-17, mostly of a Caesarean type… read “Jesus Barabbas” rather than “Barabbas,” and Origen [184-253] acknowledges that some of the manuscripts known to him attest this reading (Commentary on Matthew 121 [on Matthew 27:16-18]). Many scholars think that “Jesus Barabbas” was the original reading in Matthew and that the forename was later suppressed by reverential scribes who felt, as Origen did, that no sinner should bear the name of Jesus…This theory is made more plausible by the observation that the forename has been erased from several manuscripts (see F. Crawford Burkitt [1864-1935], Evangelion da-Mepharreshe 2.277) …Some exegetes…even suggest that “Jesus Barabbas” may have been the original reading in Mark, since “the one called Barabbas” is awkward, and elsewhere ho legomenos is usually preceded by a personal name and followed by a descriptive title or nickname (Matthew 1:16, 4:18, 10:2, 27:17, 22; John 11:16, 20:24, 21:2; Colossians 4:11). There are instances, however, in which ho legomenos is not preceded by the personal name (Matthew 26:3, 14; Luke 22:47; John 4:25, 9:11, 19:17), and awkward expressions are common in Mark. (Marcus, Mark 8-16 (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), 1028)
Ben Witherington III (4.) (b. 1951) adds:
At Mark 15:7 we are introduced to Barabbas, whose name according to a textual variant at Matthew 27:16 was Jesus Barabbas. This, in turn, has led to the suggestion that Pilate misheard the crowd when they were shouting for the release of Jesus Barabbas, thinking they were asking for Jesus of Nazareth. But there is no clear evidence for such a conclusion here, and most of the earliest and best manuscripts do not have the name Jesus appended to Barabbas. (Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 391)
What we have is two radical (Jesus) figures that stand in opposition to the national government and power of the systems and rulers of Rome. In one sense, one is innocent morally and one likely isn’t but, in another sense, they are both guilty of not being allegiant to Rome and make no mistake, both stood in complete opposition to “worshiping” the Roman authority, one by peaceful means and the other by physical harm and insurrection.
N.T. Wright (5.) (b. 1948) resolves:
The story of Barabbas invites us to see Jesus’ crucifixion in terms of a stark personal exchange. Barabbas deserves to die; Jesus dies instead, and he goes free. Barabbas was the archetypical Jewish rebel: quite probably what we today would call a fanatical right-wing zealot, determined to stop at nothing to bring in a version of God’s kingdom which consisted of defeating Roman power by Roman means – in other words, repaying pagan violence with holy violence. No doubt many Christians in Mark’s community, and others who would read his book, had at one stage at least flirted with such revolutionary movements. Reading the story of the guilty man freed and the innocent man crucified, it would not be hard for them to identify with Barabbas, and to view the rest of the story with the awestruck gaze of people who think, ‘There but for God’s grace go I.’ (Wright, Mark for Everyone, 209)
Brian Zahnd (6.) sums up this thinking saying:
“Recently a well-known megachurch pastor said, ‘When I’m looking for a leader I want the meanest, toughest son of a gun I can find.’ Whether he understands it or not, this evangelical pastor is saying, “Give us Barabbas!” For many American Christians the politics of Jesus are dismissed as impractical and so they kick the can down the road saying, ‘maybe someday we can turn our swords into plowshares, but now is the time for us to build more B-2 bombers and stockpile nukes so we can kill all our enemies.’ The crowd that gathers on Good Friday shouting, ‘Give us Barabbas!,’ is far more plausible and numerous than most of us imagine. If we think that killing our enemies is compatible with Christian ethics, we are in effect saying, ‘Give us Barabbas!’ But Lent is the time to rethink everything in the light of Christ. We are not called to scrutinize the Sermon on the Mount through the lens of the Pentagon; we are called to follow Jesus by embodying the kingdom of God here and now, no matter what the rest of the world does.” (Zahnd, The Unvarnished Jesus: A Lenten Journey, 123)
Likewise, today some evangelical Christians want to trade Jesus for “strong man” politicians who will do what it takes to “make America great again” and enforce “Christian values” on the people. Thus, in doing so we’ve created Christ in our own image. This is political idolatry and what Christian nationalistic idolatry looks like.
We’d rather have a “strong man” leader like Barabbas than the turn the other cheek, riding on a donkey, “go to the cross as the battle” savior Jesus.
Benjamin Cremer notes in his article “Trading Jesus for Barabbas” that “history shows us how devastating the consequences can be when we Christians choose ‘strong man’ leaders like Barabbas to lead us instead of Jesus in order to “take our country back for God.” Leaders who promised to do whatever it takes to conquer imagined enemies for the sake of Christianity. Enemies who Christians were convinced by such leaders to often fear and hate rather than to love. It should break our hearts to see this same trend in our world today.” He goes on to quote a democratically elected leader who in the recent past gained the support of the Christians in his nation promising to do these exact things.
This frightening quote on the same topic could sound like something coming out the mouths of many politicians and some in pulpits today:
(7.) “The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in entertainment, and in the press – in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during recent years.”
-This is a quote from a radio address that Adolf Hitler gave to Germany on July 22, 1933. (From “My New Order, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939”, Vol. 1, pp. 871-872, Oxford University Press, London, 1942)
Some Theology of the Cross
As we turn our hearts and minds to Jesus and his life, death, and resurrection this Holy Week, let us be aware of what was going on leading to the cross. Many in the Evangelical tradition like to frame the work of the cross in a court room setting where we are pardoned of sin and our debt “payed off”. I’m not going to get into the deep theology of the cross in this short blog, but we do have a whole series on it on YouTube and our Podcast. These ways of viewing Christ’s work on the Cross, specifically the Penal Substitutionary (Governmental) and Ransom theories of atonement are largely reformed and Calvinistic views; but unfortunately, most Christians have “grown up” thinking this is “just theology” and thinking that there aren’t other Biblical options. There are at least 5 other Biblical views of atonement to consider. X44 takes a Scot McKnight “Golfclub” approach to them, but we lean more on a Christus Victor way of thinking than any of the other views and in this article, you will see some aspects of substitutionary atonement theory, although in a traditional sense we don’t often agree with much of the theology that is tied to substitutionary atonement theories.
I think we can all agree that in some way Jesus was a substitute for us. What we need to realize is that it was the crowd (empowered by the government) that killed Jesus, not God (see Acts 2:23-36; Acts 3:13-18; Acts 4:10-11; Acts 5:27-28; Acts 7:51-52; Acts 10:39-41; Acts 13:26-41, as well as Isaiah 53- we see 2 perspectives [the crowd’s and reality] and it was at the hands of the crowd the servant would suffer, not God’s hands). In the gospel of Mark and John Jesus is said to be a “king” or “King of the Jews” by Pilate. The Crowd responds with “We have no King but Caesar” (John 19:15). The way of the Kingdom is backwards and will look like treason to the kingdoms of this world (Acts 17:6-7). In this way Jesus was definitely guilty of Treason before Caesar.
Leading up to the cross and on the cross Jesus presents a new way and a new kingdom: a substitute for the ones of the World that exist in a framework of power-over rather than power-under. Jesus on the cross shows us the true revelation of God and the way of the Kingdom- rather than hate, fear, violence, and grasping for power we see love, forgiveness, hope, redemption by redefining of what conquering and victory looks like. On his way to Jerusalem, Jesus explained to his disciples: the way of empire is to seek domination and “It shall not be so among you” (Matt 20:26). “The kingdom of God is a kingdom of love, not domination. As followers of Jesus, we are called to the practice of radical patience, because the kingdom of God is without coercion. We persuade by love, witness, Spirit, reason, rhetoric, and if need be, by martyrdom, but never by force.” As Alan Kreider says, this is “the patient ferment of the early church.”
Some struggle with this notion. In the Old Testament there were times where God Himself fought the battles. But at other times He asked the Israelites to act as His physical manifestation to “fight” the battles. Jesus reconciles a lot of things at the cross. That is part of His atonement. Something happens at the cross that “changes” the course of Christianity. The power of life is regained at the cross, and the victory is won. We don’t understand everything that takes place spiritually in the cross, resurrection, and ascension, that is why theologically we call them “atonement theories.” We do know Jesus sets the record straight in many ways.
Theologically we have to ask, “what changes?” It is interesting that in the New Testament (including the book of Revelation) that there isn’t one place that asks us to physically fight as Christians, but we do get some battle language describing spiritual warfare. It seems that physical fighting of Christians was reconciled at the cross, and perhaps that was never the way it was supposed to be. Does Jesus need you to physically fight for Him or His kingdom? Does he need you to fight politically? What about abortion? Should we exercise our dual citizenship to fight abortion politically? What about when government schools say God isn’t welcome there? Should we fight? What if America says you can no longer open the doors of your church to worship. Do you fight? What about when you are being persecuted for your moral convictions. Will Jesus ask you to fight physically, politically, or metaphorically? Does the Bible teach perhaps simply defensively or give permission in the name of God to “fight” offensively?
When we look at the cross this weekend do we just see a savior forgiving a sin debt or do we also see the enthronement of a King and the entrance into a new kingdom and new way of life? Dallas Willard states that we need to rethink our gospel from one of simply sin management to a gospel of a kingdom and a king that results in discipleship and transformation. We are happy about Jesus forgiving us but often reject the upside-down kingdom way of life he calls us to. Do you believe Jesus brought life here and now?
Now, coming full circle, do you see the irony (idolatry and blasphemy?) in the comparisons of Trump paralleled with Jesus during Holy Week? If anything, maybe we should compare this ideology in the church with Barabbas. Benjamin Cremer sums this though pattern up:
We want the war horse.
Jesus rides a donkey.
We want the bird of prey.
The Holy Spirit descends as a dove.
We want the militia.
Jesus calls fishermen, tax collectors, women, and children.
We want the courtroom.
Jesus sets a table.
We want the gavel.
Jesus washes feet.
We want to take up swords.
Jesus takes up a cross.
We want the empire.
Jesus brings the Kingdom of God.
We want the nation.
Jesus calls the church.
We want the roaring lion.
God comes as a slaughtered lamb.
Is there a place in Christianity for a fight? That sounds more like Jesus Barrabas than King Jesus. Some preachers and teachers believe this comes down to calling and gifting. Are some called to fight and some called to be disarmed? What does Jesus say and do? Is there (still) a place still for a disciple to carry a sword?
I pray that the church can choose the way of Jesus versus the way of Barabbas this Holy week. I pray that we can know the things that make for peace and repent of our idolatry. Lord have mercy on us!
Which Messiah will you choose?
Written by Matt Mouzakis and Dr. Will Ryan @X44
Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, 926
Donahue, The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina), 432
Marcus, Mark 8-16 (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), 1028
Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 391
Wright, Mark for Everyone, 209
Zahnd, Unvarnished Jesus, 18-19
“My New Order, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939”, Vol. 1, pp. 871-872, Oxford University Press, London, 1942
EXPEDITION 44 