We are planning a Wisconsin River trip from Saturday to Monday. This is a “plan your own way” trip. Comments will be open here for discussion. We will be traveling from Spring Green to the Muscoda which is approximately 25 miles on the river. Although this sounds significant, it isn’t a lot of paddling, about 8 hours total. We will camp at a sandbar not far from the put out at Muscoda in case some people want to take out Saturday night (with Malachi).
Meet at the Range open Saturday Morning June 28 at 8am to carpool up together.
10:30 am arrive ad put in at Peck’s landing in Spring Green: 13451 State Road 23, Spring Green, WI 53588, United States. From here you can have brunch on the beach, or paddle up the river to tower hill while you wait for vehicles to drop off cars at the takeout. Essentially, the way this works is you unload all your gear and then all the cars drive 30 minutes to the takeout and shuttle back together in one vehicle. That way when we are done with the trip we only have to pickup the shuttle vehicle. But there will be some downtime so paddling up to Tower Hill is a fun little quick excursion.
Once the drop off vehicles are back, we will start our Journey. On Saturday we will paddle 10-15 Miles. Wooded bluffs with beautiful limestone and sandstone outcroppings lie along the south side of this downstream excursion; some even rise right out of the river. The plan is to get to Muscoda by Sunaday Night/Monday Morning. The following maps came from this site.
Muscoda Boat Landing: E Water St, Muscoda, WI 53573-9153
Victoria Riverside Park Landing at Muscoda River: The landing is on a tiny, rocky peninsula that extends out from the left bank as you approach the Highway 80 Bridge. You will see a covered pavilion near the access. Riverside Park and the town of Muscoda are behind the landing.
The park is owned and maintained by the town of Muscoda and offers shaded picnic areas and camping. Trailer ramp, trailer turnaround, parking area, restrooms, water.
Muscoda is pronounced ‘muh – skoh – day’, not ‘muh – skoh – dah’.
MONDAY:
Was thinking we could hit Devils Lake State park for some cliff jumping and rock climbing on Monday on the way home! Meet at the north shore then hike the West Bluff Trail south to the Dead Tree Wall Rock Climbing area. 43°25’17.4″N 89°44’18.3″W Here is a pin.
Nice Steep 50 to 60 Ft. wall with good routes to be found just to the north of Reclining Tower area as one walks north along the West Bluff Trail. The top of Dead Tree Wall is very close to to the trail. There is a prominent central crack line called….you guessed it… “Dead Tree Crack”.Easy 3rd class gully just south of the wall. Don’t go directly down the section of the gully that lies closets to the West Bluff Trail but ease down a tad bit further from the trail. You will find it easier. Just follow the slope down along the ever growing wall to the base after negotiating the gully.
If we aren’t there, we are at ROCK 8 for swimming 2/3 of the way from the trailhead south on Tumbled Rocks Trail. Just under a half-mile south of the north shore beach on Devil’s Lake State Park’s Tumbled Rocks trail, you’ll come upon the park’s popular diving rock, “Rock 8”. Rock 8, which looks a bit like the front end of a whale from the water, can provide a diving platform ranging from 4-12 feet above the water depending on the lake level.
Why is it called Rock 8?
At one time a surveyor camp from the University of Wisconsin was located on the south-west corner of Devil’s Lake. At that time a variety of locations around the lake were numbered for training purposes. Rock 8, as you have probably guessed, had a big “8” painted on it.
Michal (/mɪˈxɑːl/; Hebrew: מִיכַל) was, was the younger daughter of King Saul and the first wife of David (1 Samuel 18:20–27) where it is said in 1 Samuel 18:20 and 18:28 that Michal loved David. The narrative does not indicate whether this is reciprocated. 1 Her story is shrouded in transparency and strange allegiance creating a mystery of interpretation. What can we glean from her part of the story? Why is she significant in the pages of the text?
DAVID’S FAME AND SAUL’S JEALOUSY
David’s early success was marked by his victory over Goliath, the Philistine giant,detailed in 1 Samuel 17, where David declares, “The LORD, who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear, will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine” (1 Samuel 17:37). His triumph brought him immediate fame and favor in the eyes of the people and King Saul.
However, David’s rising popularity soon became a source of intense jealousy for Saul. We read in 1 Samuel 18:7-9 “the women sang out: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.’ And Saul was furious and resented this song. ‘They have ascribed tens of thousands to David,’ he said, ‘but only thousands to me. What more can he have but the kingdom?’ And from that day forward, Saul kept a jealous eye on David.”
David was 15 years old when he fought Goliath and shortly after was wed and found himself fleeing Saul all within three short years.2
THE MARRIAGE
The story begins to go south by the time Saul invited David to marry Michal. The text tells us that Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” (1 Sa 18:20–21a). But when David was offered a bride, he replied, “I am a poor and lightly esteemed man”, meaning that he was unable to provide a bride price, especially one of a king’s daughter. Saul then advised him that no bride price was required except for the foreskins of 100 Philistines, to which David then “answered” by killing 200 Philistines. In the ancient world this would have been a “double portion” sentiment essentially expressing that the dowry was far greater than the price asked and also communicating a message that he was able and willing. It was often viewed in a client benefactor relationship as the returning of a reciprocal gestured gift. But I want you to also consider the implications of the text. This is a 16–17-year-old boy (likely with a forming army) who kills 200 philistines.
Can you deconstruct any traditional (David was a man after God’s own heart) thoughts you might have on David to just take a step back and unbiasedly consider the repercussions of this? David was anointed to bring back Israel to God. Saul represents the world. David is quickly enticed by the praises of the world, the flesh, and the kingship that he will do nearly anything to continue his rise to power. I doubt his interest in the wedding to Michal was much more than a political step. We don’t seem to see any inkling of more than that in the text. But consider what David did, at the request of Saul, the worldly king who at this point is positioned in the text as one being opposite of God, kills 200 philistines and brings back part of their genitals.
There is nothing in the text to hint that God thought this was a good idea, there is no divine sanction given; we are simply reading the narrative of what took place. You are always being mentored by someone and here we see David begin to be mentored by the ways of the world. Some even go as far to say that King Saul was demon possessed at this time.3 You have to ask the question then, is this cold-blooded murder? Is it an act of war and permissible in the ancient world? Why would David do this? The evident answer is it was a way of personally solidifying the throne rather than relying on God’s timing. The reality of the situation was likely that Each foreskin represents a life taken. Not by natural disaster, chaos or an act of God, not even by war, or accident. Each life was taken by David, on the jealous whim of King Saul.
By the time David is only 18 years old, Saul turns on David throwing the Javelin at him causing David to flee and rally some men for protection. Michal chooses the welfare of David over the wishes of her father. When Saul’s messengers search for David in order to kill him, Michal sends them away while pretending he was ill and laid up in bed. She lets David down through a window and hides teraphim in his bed as a ruse. J. Cheryl Exum points out that although she risked her life in helping him, after he leaves the court, he makes no attempt to contact her.4 This might imply a one-sided love, but we would have to deduce that as the text doesn’t clearly say one way or another. It could also be an act to protect her so that she would not have been implicated or even killed. We also don’t know why she helped David or her heart’s intentions; the text doesn’t give us that. I don’t know that at this point in the story we should be deducing much. There don’t seem to be any great biblical takeaways, it is merely character development, but don’t miss that. I used to think that David’s heart was “pure” at the beginning but after really thinking through the early parts of this story and particularly the 200 foreskins and likely trying to assume a place in the kingdom for himself, I am no longer convinced. On the other hand, we all make mistakes, but hopefully that doesn’t entail the murder of 200 people.
DAVID ALIGNS WITH THE PHILISTINES
What is even more strange than this is that within a short period of time from this instance, David sought refuge among the Philistines, specifically with Achish, the king of Gath. In 1 Samuel 27, David and his men settled in Ziklag, a town given to him by Achish. David lived among the Philistines for a year and four months, during which he conducted raids against various groups while maintaining the pretense of loyalty to Achish.
Some have tried to argue that David killed 200 Philistines as some kind of holy sanction in the name of the LORD to drive out and annihilate them. I don’t think this is a faithful view. The text doesn’t make any effort to suggest such a “smile” from God and the over whelming commands of YHWH would not line up with this kind of violence or murder particularly in form of a payment or dowry. You also have to ask the question would God be aligned with the Philistines?
The Philistines played a crucial role in the events leading to Saul’s downfall. In 1 Samuel 28-31, the Philistines gathered their forces to fight against Israel. David, still under the guise of a Philistine ally, was initially expected to join the battle. However, the Philistine commanders, wary of David’s potential betrayal, refused to allow him to fight alongside them (1 Samuel 29:4-7).
The battle culminated in a disastrous defeat for Israel at Mount Gilboa, where Saul and his sons, including Jonathan, were killed. This defeat paved the way for David’s ascension to the throne of Israel. If you are paying attention, you are going to figure out that David aided the Philistines in fighting against Israel so that he could assume the throne of Israel. In other words, he put Himself in alliance with those that God had commanded clearly not to be in alliance with. Again, if you can allow yourself to read unbiasedly, it sure seems like David is making decisions away from the heart of God and violating several of God’s commands rather than being one who aligns with them.
REMARRIAGE
The plot thickens, while David was in hiding Saul gave Michal as a wife to Palti, son of Laish. Again, the Biblical narrative doesn’t tell us much. Was this an act to blot out David from Israel as if he were dead? David will also go on to take on several other wives (which should also allude to some thigs in your plot and character analysis), but when David becomes king of Judah and Ish-bosheth (Michal’s brother, and Saul’s son) is king of Israel, David demands her return to him in return for peace between them. Ish-bosheth complied, despite the public protests of Palti (2 Samuel 3:13–16.) Again, the text doesn’t give us a lot. Is this David wanting his first love back or more of a power play? Robert Alter observes that by stressing that he had paid the requested bride price, David makes a legal argument as a political calculation to reinforce his legitimacy as a member of the royal house. Alter notes the contrast between David’s measured negotiations and Palti’s public grief.5 It appears Michal had a real relationship with the second husband, as he weeps bitterly as she’s taken away (2 Sam. 3:12). We don’t hear from her again until that fateful day when the Ark came into Jerusalem. But this could account for bitterness. Is she a woman in captivity?
This is where things get interesting. I have said it for many years; David is a wild card. Most people think of him as a guy with a heart after God, but as I have made the point subsequentially that isn’t biblically accurate. John Walton has a book coming out on this topic. I am not sure I could trust David, or who knows, maybe he would be my best friend. It’s messy. It is complicated. I have no idea. He loved the Lord but seemed so far away at times. He did great things for the kingdom but was nearly solely responsible for Israel’s demise and set the table for Israel completing turning from the Lord. He had been given everything necessary to do great things for the Lord but seemed to fall hugely short. The rest of the story of David and Michal continues to show this sort of messiness begging the question, what exactly is going on.
ARK HISTORY
When David brought the ark in the first time, he did so in complete ignorance. Here is the danger when every generation does not go back to the word of God and study fresh without consideration of the traditions established by the previous generation. The ark had been carted around the countryside off and on and housed for many years so that a generation arose that had no idea that God had legislated transporting the ark. In 1 Chron. 15:12, David admits his error – notice the words, “we did not seek the Lord according to the rule.” Wow, that is a Geraldo episode!
IT IS COMPLICATED
After Michal was returned to David, she criticized him for dancing in an undignified manner, as he brought the Ark of the Covenant to the newly captured Jerusalem in a religious procession (2 Samuel 6:14–22). But if you dive into the context of 2 Samuel 6 this is very complicated. We need some prior context. 2 Samuel 6:3-8 and 1 Chronicles 13:7-11 tell us that when the Ark of the Covenant was being brought back from the land of the Philistines Uzzah drove the cart on which the ark was placed when David sought to bring it up to Jerusalem. When the oxen stumbled, making the ark tilt, Uzzah steadied the ark with his hand, in direct violation of the divine law (Numbers 4:15), and he was immediately killed by the Lord for his error. This seems harsh, but that’s a different article. David, displeased because Yahweh had killed Uzzah,6 called the place where this occurred “Perez-uzzah”, which means “to burst out against Uzzah” according to 2 Samuel 6:8 and 1 Chronicles 13:11. That is quite a statement against the Lord. Consider that for a moment and I will remind you that it was a public profession. Can you imagine a “heart after God’s heart” making that kind of a statement?
David was afraid to bring the ark any further (after making a statement about God like that I would be too) and placed it in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for what ended up being only three months. The Lord then blessed Obed-edom and David went and brought up the ark of God into the city of David. Was David just in it for the blessings? At this point you should be wondering what exactly is happening between David and God. God kills Uzzah, David is mad, David drops off the Ark, God blesses them, David then wants it back and goes and gets it; then does one of his famous naked dances in the street and his wife gets upset.
“DANCING” WITH GOD
There is a word play in Hebrew that might describe David dancing like a mad man and the implication would be that he was mad at God. David danced before the Lord. The Hebrew word used for before is lipeni. This is often used as a preposition, but it can also be used as an adjective. As a preposition, it would simply mean that David danced before God. But as an adjective, it would mean that David danced in God’s presence. Actually, it would be more correct to say that David danced with God. But In Hebrew this is a contranym, meaning it can be a dance or a tussle. I say this because the Hebrew word for dance that is used here, it is karar. The common word for dance in Hebrew is mawkhole, but that is not used here. In fact, karar is used only two times in the Hebrew Bible, both in this passage. In extra-Biblical sources karar does not mean to dance at all, it means to spin around like a top and pictured as children fighting in ancient times. karar in its Semitic root means one who is possessed. In verse 20, we learn his wife Michal was upset with David because he danced naked. The word naked or uncovered however is the word nigelah in Hebrew, in English we would say to become “unhinged.” Are you following me? The Hebrew words are specific in the text and are purposeful. The implication is he was acting like a fighting child. This could be good or bad. Was he actually “dancing” beautifully with the Lord? If so, why the strange use of Hebrew words and the play on them? The Hebrew verbiage seems to imply a negative childish act of fighting with God or being mad in the way that he danced.
DAVID’S DRESS OR NACKEDNESS
Michal accuses him of going around “half-naked.” The Hebrew word is the passive form of גילה gi-lay, which is נגלה nig-la, and means to be revealed. Her meaning in 2 Sam. 6:20 seems to be “to expose oneself.” Was it a naked dance? But we need to understand grammatical voices in the text as a texture of interpretation. This is an accurate account of what Michal said, but not necessarily an accurate account of what David actually did. Particularly because the text itself says that he was clothed.
Michal may have been just in criticizing David. Her words are accurate. David was not behaving in a kingly fashion, and she accused him of taking a sexual overtone in the way he showed himself. You might read into the text an accusation of pride here. But in a way she was correct, this was not a “kingly” gesture, and it may not have been portrayed as a “Godly” gesture to some. In light of what we have discovered, interpreting this as any kind of a “God honoring” dance seems far-fetched, but that is what David claims it was.
THE EPHOD
The ephod David wore was a garment usually reserved for priests and those ministering before the Lord.7 As David led the procession of the ark into the city, he laid aside the royal garments and worshiped the Lord, in ecstatic joy. This is complicated. David wasn’t a priest, although all of Israel was supposed to have been priests. Is this a slap in the face or a returning to the divine plan? In some ways Michal and others might have even wondered if God would strike him down for going from wearing a priest’s ephod to being nearly naked, especially knowing what he did in terms of naming the place of Uzzah’s death. This is reminiscent of a controversial super bowl half time show of modern America. Israel knew how to party, and this could have been construed many different ways.
The text tells us that “David danced before the Lord with all his might” (2 Sam. 6:14). But this could be interpreted several different ways. It doesn’t say that is what the Lord thought or received it as. It is more like a narrator at a parade, or a restating of what David said. Michal condemned David for dressing or undressing in such a common fashion and lowering himself to dance and rejoice with the common people as the ark was being brought into Jerusalem. Was she right? Was she simply embarrassed or could she have been spiritually concerned? Is there any way this could have been an act of humility on David’s part?
FORESHADOWS
Some have made the point that perhaps he was attempting to be a nobody in his nakedness. Was he acting in pride or humility? Sometimes that is a fine line. Was Michal in alignment with God or worried about her own reputation? Whatever your thoughts, there is an element of the dance that foreshadows Jesus. David was humble to dance unlike the perceived character of the world’s expectations for a king. Jesus also in humility, did not meet the world’s expectations for a king. Perhaps in the same mindset, David knew that “poor in spirit” was the way he needed to approach God. God is the one he needed to honor, not himself. It is also worth considering that the priests were supposed to be the image of humility before the Lord and David in stripping down to nearly nothing was showing his complete transparent humility before Israel and the Lord. This could also be a foreshadow of Christ’s ultimate act of humility wearing nearly the same thing to the cross.
When later questioned by Michal David’s response is interesting, “It was before the Lord … and I will celebrate before the Lord. I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in your eyes. But by the female servants of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor” (2 Sam. 6:21-22). Was his dance an act of pride, humility, or madness? He seems to get quite offensive with Michal, especially if he then withholds offspring from her. I will remind you that such dancing or leaping, seems to be a posture of the heart affirmed by Jesus (Luke 6:22, 23). I bring this up because as we question, we should be reminded that Jesus came to clarify and set several records straight. However, the context of Luke 6 doesn’t seem to be pointing towards David either, so I am not sure that applying it is a faithful hermeneutic.
MICHAL AND THE WINDOW
Saul had little inkling for anything Godly. Maybe Michal didn’t either. But perhaps she has lost any passion to truly seek to know God. The procession to bring the sacred box, called the ark, to Jerusalem was a very joyful event and much like the procession for a bride on her wedding day. On a groom’s wedding day, it was accustomed for a man to dance in front of the bride. He may be an upstanding man; but at the wedding, he was happy for people to laugh with him. On that day, he desired no honor for himself, he desired only that the bride should receive honor. This also might give us some implications to the foreshadowing of Christ as the Bride of the church which was intended to have been Israel.8
DAVID REBUKES MICHAL
I want to ask a challenging question for your deep consideration. Does the Bible actually tell us that the Lord was pleased by David’s dance? In the next chapter Nathan starts by telling David that the Lord is “with Him”, but then Nathan gets a word from the Lord that seems contrary and the Lord doesn’t sound pleased, in fact David is downright reprimanded by the WORD OF THE LORD. But David’s responsive prayer seems very humble in reply. OHHHHHH This back and forth….
David rebuked Michal in the Bible for criticizing his exuberant dancing before the Lord, perhaps emphasizing his devotion to God over royal propriety, or was it possibly a holy disgust? Could Michal actually be the voice (picture) of one that is holy, and the lack of children shows the tribulation of Israel before God? Either way, this incident further strained their relationship, and the Bible notes that Michal remained childless until her death. 9 While some interpret this as a divine punishment for her judgment of David’s worship, I don’t think that is the case or the nature of God. It is more likely that David, in his anger, withheld himself from her sexually, especially considering his other options. King David had several wives, including Michal, Abigail of Carmel, Ahinoam of Jezreel, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, as well as concubines. The estrangement between Michal and David, rooted in their differing perspectives on loyalty to God and the monarchy, ultimately led to their childlessness and the end of Saul’s lineage.
Let’s consider for a moment that the barrenness was a message from God. If your theology finds yourself believing David was pure in his actions and Michal was not in alignment with God or David but rather represents the world in this story, then her barrenness might also be significant as understanding foreshadowing to Christ. If the world is against Christ, then perhaps they are made barren, which means to no longer produce life… Choose Jesus or choose death. That might be an interesting implication of the text to those unbelieving of Jesus as the Messiah, which ironically was near the same cultural audience several hundred years later. Would barrenness be seen as then a punishment from God? That might be theologically problematic if you believe God is only capable of what is good. It is also interesting that Michal is not described as being beautiful (when other brides sometimes are), though Rabbinic tradition holds that she was of “entrancing beauty.”10
It is also worth noting that from this time on the Levites facilitated the worship of the nation of Israel from the days of King David to the days of Nehemiah in the temple with musical instruments and singing but not dancing according to Numbers 1:48-54, 8:15; 1 Chronicles 23:1-6; Nehemiah 10:39, 11:22. Does this carry any implications?
CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS:
First of all, I don’t want to shape your conclusion but provide a basis of better interpretation. I am not spoon-feeding babies here.
This story is ugly in so many ways. But it didn’t have to be. This is why I am so conflicted with David and his character. What if, instead of rebuking her, he loved her? What if he sought to bring healing to her bitter heart? It is the kindness of the Lord that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). While I love David’s zeal, I see a little bit of pride and childishness in his response to his wife.11 But then again, what if we are really missing the big picture? What if God was smiling on David because his heart had changed in the dance off or wrestling match. Could the composure of David’s prayer in the next chapter finally show him bringing a heart of repentance before the Lord?
Michal remained barren until the end of her life. But I think David could have brought healing to her wounded heart. Traditionally we hear things like David had a heart after God and danced before the Lord and God was pleased, but the text doesn’t actually say or even imply anything close to that upon more careful reading.
Lastly, we are told not to judge, but we are supposed to study the word, test the spirit, and act to bear fruit. What can we learn transparently from this text? And herein is the hope for us: If God can extend love and grace to a man like David – if God can establish the kingdom of Jesus Christ through the merciless murder of 200 Philistine men and boys – then the depth of His grace is boundless. And the same grace that fell to David is available to us all, through the Son of David, the Lord Jesus Christ. Praise be to God.
In 1 Samuel 18:26, David is “pleased … to become the king’s son-in-law” but we are not told whether he was pleased to have married Michal. See Cohen, M., “The Transparency of Saul”, European Judaism, volume 39, no. 1, 2006, for a comparison of the transparent presentation of Saul and the opaqueness of David’s character in 1 Samuel. ↩︎
When I was in High school attending a rather large evangelical free church, we had some missionaries come in to train us on street evangelism. The idea was to memorize a step plan for salvation that we could easily regurgitate on the streets. The core of it was based on convincing someone that according to Adams sin we had been separated from God and that only by professing with our mouth and praying the sinner’s prayer could we escape eternal torment and damnation. As there is arguably some truth to that statement, the presentation not only created some terrible theological implications of the gospel message (both to those presenting and those being presented to) but also wasn’t necessarily the best Biblical framework. Of course, as “good” kids we all just went along with it, at least initially. As you can imagine this led to some really awkward conversations in the street and left several students wondering if this is what Christianity is all about whether they really wanted to be part of it. The following year a different but similar group came essentially “training” us to try to do the same thing evangelizing our hometown. But then something happened, this time (likely based on their previous poor experience) several of the students started to transparently challenge the process. I remember it almost as if it was the enslaved rebels of Star Wars questioning the empirical ideals. Questions like, “where does it actually say this in the Bible?” and “Do you really think this is the action that the text had in mind when it was written?” Another student said, “I don’t think I want anything to do with a plan like this, I didn’t come to Jesus to force my friends into submission.” I could go on and on. The training group couldn’t really answer them with any kind of logical explanations, and I was quite disheartened by the whole thing. The night resulted in half the youth group leaving early bailing on street evangelism to go out for ice cream; while the other half (some likely afraid of their parent’s repercussions if they left) continued with the group to evangelize. I am sure there was a small percentage of the “good” kids that convinced themselves this was what good Christian kids should do. I was also skeptical of Billy Graham “crusades” as a kid. And before I continue, I want to say that even though I still don’t entirely agree with these crusades and this kind of step plan evangelistic plans I do believe God uses it in powerful ways. I know many that came to faith this way and then over the course of time found a better theology. But my heart desires to say, let’s start with a better theology!
This youth group interaction was a monumental occurrence in my life that made me start questioning why Christians do what they do and whether the Bible actually said things like the church traditionally claimed. Instead of driving me away from Christianity, as some thought questioning the faith would do, it drove me towards a lifelong beautiful “expedition” towards understanding the incredible word of God and His nature. I don’t know of anyone who has had such joy in the journey. This is my love language, and I pray that it becomes yours.
UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS WITH FRAMING SEPERATION FROM GOD THEOLOGY
The central question for your consideration is does the Bible actually say and teach what we have so often regurgitated that “sin has separated us from God?” I will start by saying any time you here a doctrine and you can’t find one verse that clearly states what the doctrine is attempting to “make the gospel say,” the best advice might be to run. If the intent of God was to give us some crafty 4 step plan of salvation wouldn’t that be clearly laid out somewhere in the text? Yet in the “ROMANS ROAD” plan of salvation we have to jump all over Romans back and forth to try to understand the so called laid out plan. Similarly, if a doctrine states something simply in one sentence such as “sin separates us from God” shouldn’t the Bible also state it similarly if it is true? That would make sense. Yet something as engrained in our head such as the statement, “sin separates us from God” doesn’t ever seem to be stated that way anywhere in the text. We deduce it. That doesn’t make it wrong or untrue, it just raises some hermeneutic red flags that should cause you the need or desire to examine it.
What verses then tell us that we are separated from God by Sin?1 Here are the best ones coming straight from those that hold this type of framework:
Are there others? Well, if you think these are a stretch, the others that people claim support separation you’re going to have an even harder time with. These are the closest verses that the Bible has that state we are separated from God by our sin. If you google the question the first link will be “100 verses by open Bible Info”. I will say that almost none of them actually state we are separated from God2, but such a simple search certainly shows that someone thinks or has been traditionally conditioned to tell us that.3
The only verse above that actually comes close to simply stating that sin has separated us from God is Isaiah 59:2. At first reading I can see this, however when you start applying textures of interpretation you see the verse differently. Basic laws of any hermeneutic design say, don’t ever make a doctrine off of one verse. In other words, if there is only one verse that seems to say something that can’t be found elsewhere in the pages of the Bible it likely doesn’t say what you mean what you think. If it did there would be supporting verses. SO then theologically you should be asking the question, if this verse seems to say this, but there isn’t another verse that says it, could there be a different meaning for this text? This kind of thinking leads to a better or more faithful interpretation and overall agreement in your theological lens. John Walton interprets Isaiah 59 as highlighting the necessity of a savior due to humanity’s iniquities and moral failures, yep, we need that!4 The Hebrew word used here that is interpreted as the English word “separated” is בָּדל (badal.) It is the same word used in Genesis one in the creation narrative used to describe the separation of the light, and water, day and night. Notice in these cases it isn’t a chasm that separates those things, and it is part of God’s order. In fact, the truth is that it is opposite to that way of thinking, day touches night beautifully. It is the most beautiful part of the day that we call sunrise and sunset. Where the land meets water is a beach! We all LOVE the beach. We want to dwell in beaches. We vacation on beaches. Do you see my point? To frame this word as division or a chasm that can’t be overcome isn’t Biblical. Sometimes beauty comes when the peace meets the chaos and that is often where God dwells in scripture. The Biblical picture is actually a “slice of heaven”, the most beautiful thing the world has seen. CS Lewis spent a great deal of time dwelling on this concept.5 Do you see what I am saying? Badal also is a form of setting something apart. You know the other Hebrew word that is used to say that? Kadosh – Holy. The context of Isaiah 59 is actually a word play in the form of a contranym. So yes, in one sense God is holy and sin is the opposite of Holiness, but God isn’t separated from us by that, He actually dwells close to it. The other problem with framing God so far away is that it is giving sin way too much power over you. I am not willing to give sin that kind of leverage or title in my life. God finds people in some of the darkest places. When you run away you think you are far from Him, but the Biblical truth is that God is right there for you. If you truly believe in the omnipresent of God than you have to take this theological perspective. To say there is a chasm between a person sinning and God doesn’t agree with the doctrine of omnipresence.
Furthermore, Isaiah 56 is a prophetic indictment to a people immersed in injustice, oppression, and violence. The “separation” here isn’t God walking away. It’s people who have closed their ears to God’s voice. It’s spiritual disconnection, not divine abandonment. There’s a difference between feeling distant from God and God actually being distant. God never leaves.6
Secondly, once we give our life to Jesus, sin doesn’t simply disappear. According to most plans of salvation logically that is what would make sense. If we are separated by God and we say the magic words than sin is no longer in our lives (the chasm would logically be bridged never to be empty again) but if sin truly separates, then it creates a theology that logically would mean that we would continually be in need of repetitive salvation prayers to bridge this gap over and over. We know that isn’t the case. It creates a poor theological framework. What is true is that we can make a heart and mind choice to live for Him and even though we are still in part of the earthly physical world we are free from the endearing result of sin which is death both in the physical life and eternally. That is grace. To actually believe in this great chasm, minimizes or does away with a Biblical concept of covenant grace. So, to frame sin as a separation from God logically and ontologically doesn’t make sense or follow the premise of the biblical story of God’s redemption of us. It misses the mark.
Furthermore, saying that sin has separated us from God frames the character of God in a way that doesn’t agree with the Bible. It leads us to thinks that from birth we naturally were being judged by the sin of those before us. Yet the Bible is clear that we are only responsible before the Lord for our own actions and not the actions of others. Yes, we are affected by others (perhaps even for generations) but that is slightly different. Affected and responsibility or having to earn something as a result of someone else’s past are different issues. This gets more into the original sin conversation than it does sin separation; but the two are certainly connected. If you haven’t watched or listened to the x44 series on original sin you should do that. Saying that we are always separated from God by sin assumes that when we “sin” God must turn his face or step away from us. That is not true. The overarching message of the Bible is that God does not leave us or forsake us. I wrote an article on this. Do you believe the nature of God gets angry and wrathful when you sin. Do you think God wants to smite you because you sin? That sounds monstrous doesn’t it, yet many peoples theology believes that. Yet God’s love for us couldn’t be more opposite of thinking that way. When we sin, God more than anything, grieves for us and wants to draw us closer to Him into His hand of providence. When we continue to sin God will eventually open his hand of protection and allow us to reap what we have sown. This is actually a more Biblical definition of wrath. We get what we had coming, God no longer protects. (Israel in exile is the archetypical picture of this, but God has always desired and welcomed them back with open arms, thus the prodigal son story and many more. There is no separation or barrier from God’s perspective.) When we think that God is separated from us by sin, we begin to believe that God loves us when we do good and leaves us when we don’t. Or perhaps we think that when we are in devotion to Him, He blesses us and when we are separated by sin He is done with us and can no longer use us for the kingdom. Those in the book of Job asked this question as a retribution principle and God was clear to answer at the end of the story that that is not His character. We have a series on that too. I am glad that isn’t the case. No one would have ever been used by God. Does God just leave us the second we screw up?
DOES SEPARATION OF GOD CHANGE AT THE CROSS?
This is a great question. If you are following along and thinking through the texts, you might realize that in the Old Covenant there seem to be examples of separation from God even though the text never really says it so simply. (As I previously made the point, it could be deduced from the text.) Romans 8 seems to support a notion that in the Old Covenant before the cross we were separated from God. That could be why the cloud came and went from Israel’s trail. It could also show the veil between the holy of holies and the need for a priest. But then when Christ comes as our once and for all great high priest and the veil is torn at the cross, we become the temple of the holy spirit to which the separation is broken. In this sense there MIGHT have been a separation between God and the people in the Old Testament but Jesus (not necessarily the cross itself) removed any sense of being separated. The only problem with holding a view that there was separation in the Old Testament is that the text never actually says it. If the text really intended us to take away that notion wouldn’t one of the 39 books clearly state that? Yet they don’t, it has to be deduced which then makes it a theology of humankind. That should always be problematic to your theology and possibly a dangerous place to dwell. Another great question that then follows suite would be, “Is there a separation for the unbeliever?” I don’t think so. If you take the view that in the OT there was a separation between God and humanity it would be with everyone, not just unbelievers. The cloud and the veil support that theology. If that foreshadows the NT then it would take on the same ideology. Neither believer nor unbeliever are separated then. They are all close to God, God is never far off. This may sound different than what you have always been told but there isn’t anything that would disagree with it; in fact, it takes on a far better lens of agreement within all the texts. I can’t think of one verse that would actually make this a difficult view to hold.
PERHAPS IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A SEPARATION BY SIN
Even though the Bible doesn’t seem to have the framework or state specifically that we are separated from God by sin wouldn’t that make sense. We have certainly always been told that -right? But since the Bible doesn’t say it, we would be left to deduce it. Is that faithful hermeneutics? Well, it can be, if you believe in systematic theology, you are already doing that sort of thing regularly. But Biblical theology questions those practices. In one sense it seems to follow logic that in a relationship if one side falls out of love or becomes distanced you might say they feel are even separated. We say that in broken marriages that grow apart all the time without micro analyzing it. But that doesn’t work biblically with God as one side of the relationship. We are told and shown this multiple times in the Bible. Jesus is the bride of Christ and even though the groom (sometimes viewed as Israel in the OT) was unfaithful, the bride remains completely faithful and therefore is not separated. The separation came from Israel creating a reason to be distanced but God Himself still never leaves or forsakes them in covenant love. Some would say God divorces Israel but that leaves some deep theological problems that need to be sorted if you go that way. The more accurate Biblical mosaic and unending motif of redemption is that despite the unfaithfulness of Israel God is near with open arms. To this design, even though someone distances themselves from God, (and in our human broken relationships) the same is not true of the character of God. God never distances himself from the lost, the divergent saved, the broken, the lost, or the unfaithful… God is always near (which is what the doctrine of omnipresence means, which is also a theology of humanity as long as we are making the statement.) It is important to have consistent theology. I have said many times that the reformed perspective of believing God is omnipresent and also believing that we can be separated from God doesn’t follow a logical pattern. The two views are at odds; they can’t both hold true. If you feel or sense that God is far away or you have severed your relationship, that is what you feel, but the reality and major thematic covenantal truth is that God hasn’t left you. This is true as a believer or unbeliever. God is always near; there is not a chasm between you and God.
UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLICAL TRUTH AND THE BETTER THEOLOGY
The Bible never once states that we are separated from God by sin, but it states over and over that nothing can separate us from God. And Jesus solidifies this regularly if there were any doubt.
Romans 8:38-39: “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Something tells me you have sang loud “NOTHING CAN SEPRATE US” in the Your Love Never Fails song by Chris Quilala of Jesus Culture. Remember that? We sing it so confidently but then believe sin has formed a chasm? How does that work? You can’t sing a song like this and still theologically think that way.
Some say God can’t be in the presence of Evil. That isn’t true either. God clearly sees evil. He is involved, engaged, and working redemption in real time and space. The idea that God literally can’t be near sin is a misreading of the text, and a dangerous concept or doctrine.7
Jesus makes all things clear
Jesus shows us that God wasn’t separated from the sinful, that His heart was moved towards a deeper connection with those in sin than perhaps anyone else. Think about the relationship that Christ had with those in sin. How can you be separated and be in deep relationship at the same time? You can’t. Those two things are opposites. Yet Jesus had deep relationships and was NOT separated by sin to those dwelling in it. He drew a line on the ground for the woman in adultery turning back those who took offense, He touched and healed the unclean before they claimed any relationship with the father. He loved them before they had any semblance of knowing Him. He routinely shared a table with sinners and invited them to be in His sacred space. In other words, he didn’t build chasms between Himself and the sinful, rather He walked hand and hand with them shepherding them to Him. He entreated those that were immersed even drowning in their sin. That doesn’t sound like a cliff of separation to me. It sounds the opposite. It sounds and looks like relational love.
“Come to me, all who are weary and burdened…” (Matt. 11:28)
And when Jesus went to the cross, He entered fully into the consequence and depth of human sin, not to separate us from God, but to reveal how far God was willing to go to stay with us.8
CONSIDERING SIN
This article isn’t meant to diminish sin. Sin is the opposite of God, but as I have made the case isn’t impenetrable. Sin is infectious, it hurts, it cuts, it wounds, it severs, it destroys and requires spiritual healing. Make no doubt there. Continually giving into sin is the road to death both physically in this life now and also to come in an eschatological sense (already not yet). Sin masks our identity in Christ and creates worldly thoughts of shame, pride, fear, insecurity, hurt, doubt, trauma, and so much more. Sin hurts not only you but those in relationship and covenant with you. Sin can severe your ability to walk in the spiritual prosperity that God has for you. Sin inhibits the freedom that God gives. Sin is the opposite of the peace that God manifests in us. Jesus came to take away the sin of the world. I am in no way diminishing the effects of sin on this world.
Dr. Matt and I are writing a book on this, so I am going to keep the more theological section here brief, but I also feel like it needs to be shown in this article. The effect of Jesus’s death concerning humanity’s sins in 1 John (specifically but also every other reference) is to cleanse (kathatizo), or to remove (airo) sin, not to appease or satisfy. Thus, Jesus’ death as an “atoning sacrifice” functions as an expiation of sin and not the propitiation of God. This is exactly what is happening in the Day of Atonement, and it is the image John is using in the entirety of 1 John. There is not one image of God needing to be appeased in 1 John to forgive sin or cleanse.
What does “for our sins” mean? “For” can have many meanings. But Greek is specific whereas English is not. There are 4 words with 4 distinct meanings (with some minor overlap) in Greek for “for”:
Anti: this for that (substitution or exchange)
Eye for (anti) an eye, tooth for (anti) a tooth (Matt 5:38)
“Do not repay anyone evil [in exchange] for (anti) evil” (Rom 12:17)
Dia: Because of or on account of; from
one agent acting against another agent or on behalf of another
Peri: Concerning, about (sometimes overlaps with Dia)
Conveying general information about something
Huper:in some entity’s interest: for, on behalf of, for the sake of,
the moving cause or reason: because of, for the sake of, for.
In 1 John 4:10 and 2:2 we see peri being used for “for”, besides Mark 10:45 (anti “this for that”- substitution or exchange)9 all of the other New Testament uses of “died for us”, “died for me”, and “died for our sins” and its cognates are huper -about a benefit, or as the Creed above said, “on our behalf”.10 I’m not saying that Jesus did not do something in our place (although I would be careful with using the term substitution doctrinally) but he did this on our behalf- for a benefit or to rescue us (but not from the Father).
Those 3 verses (Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) are all of the references to “propitiation” in the NT. Hebrews 2:17 also uses a variation of this word and in context is about what the high priest does with the purification offering on the Day of Atonement. We’ve seen that all these mean expiations or show Jesus as the “mercy seat” when interpreted in the proper context of the Day of Atonement.
We do not see that the scapegoat or the purification offering had to be killed to propitiate God’s wrath. To interpret these in this way is going beyond the text and meaning of the Day of Atonement shadow. In other word’s framing the text that was is reading into it, it isn’t a faithful hermeneutic. The primary question about the Day of Atonement goats is whether God is being acted upon (changed?) or is sin being acted upon. As we saw with expiation, sin is the force being acted upon. But with propitiation, God is being acted upon. Yet, the noun’s use in the New Testament is about Jesus being the place where we connect with God because of his High Priestly and expiating function. This makes sense of Paul’s most popular phrase for salvation: “In Him”- Jesus is where (the place- Mercy Seat) we meet with God.
There are plenty of other corresponding verses that all agree with this methodology such as Leviticus 16; Romans 3:21-26, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10; Heb 13:11-12; Matt 27:28-31; Heb 9:14-28; Heb 10:8-17; 1 John 3:5-8; John 1:29; Col 2:14; 2 Cor 5:21.
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOU?
If you believe sin separates you from God, then every time you fall short or miss the mark, you’ll think or believe that God’s love has left or betrayed you or has turned His face from you. That is such a poor image of God’s character and against everything the Bible says about His great redemption story. It is counter to almost every thematic motif in the Bible. Have you been harboring the lie that keeps you from experiencing what God wants most for you? Are you wallowing in your mess because you haven’t claimed redemption? God is always with you.
God’s grace for your sin is stronger than your worst nightmare or anything the world can dish out.
In the image of the Exodus there was actually no substitution or exchange but that Jesus’ life was costly and his death and blood saves us from Death. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSqtE13v5k for a full word study on “For us” and all its uses in the NT. ↩︎
Some of the most prominent sacrificial “For Us” verses in the NT that use huper (not anti): Rom 5:6-8; 1 Cor 15:3-5; 2 Cor 15:14-15; Gal 1:3-4; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:1-2; 1 Thes 5: 9-10; Titus 2:11-14; Heb 2:9-11. ↩︎
How the church creates a treadmill that exhausts disciples instead of shepherding in peace
There’s a certain kind of Christian exhaustion that doesn’t come from the world, It comes from the church. Maybe you have experienced this. I have been a part of several church plants. The first one was in a local HS and was “church out of a truck.” It took 3 hours to setup and a couple hours to break down. It stole our best energy that should have been used for shepherding. I vowed to never do that again. Or maybe you started attending a church and wondered “what is next?” or tasked the staff “how do I get to know people deeper here?” and were answered with something to the shape of, “start serving!” At times the kingdom does require tribulation, toil, and simply work; but it shouldn’t send mixed messages with the primary pursuit of the church to shepherd.
I call it the church hustle.
It’s what happens when discipleship becomes a to-do list. When spiritual growth gets measured by the offering plate, perfect attendance, your service record, or how many books you’ve read or podcasts you have listened to and reported back to your pastor this year. Barna says this is the number one reason people don’t trust churches.1
It’s the creeping pressure that says: If I just try harder, God will finally be pleased with me.
have you experienced this feeling? A subtle uncertainty that your church wants more of your assets when you are just hoping to be shepherded? We rarely say it that plainly. But we’ve felt it. The unspoken message: You’re not quite there yet… but maybe if you pray more, serve more, repent better, or climb the next ladder, you’ll get there. Is that the message the church is sending?
Spiritual Capitalism in Disguise
Richard Rohr (you might remember him from our liminal spaces post) recently named this dynamic with piercing clarity. He calls it “spiritual capitalism”, the belief that we can somehow earn our way to spiritual success.2Spiritual Capitalism has shaped American churches, political movements, and personal financial strategies. It views free-market capitalism as divinely sanctioned and tells people that if they work hard, give enough, and believe enough, wealth and deeper spiritual alignment will follow.3
This kind of thinking is far from the texture of shepherding in the Bible. It creates a theology of pressure. A treadmill masked as discipleship and will burn out our body dynamics with things that have very little kingdom methodology.
How the Hustle Gets Into Us
We’ve spiritualized the very mindset Jesus came to free us from.4 We say we believe in grace, but we measure ourselves by performance. We don’t view grace as a reciprocal unending gift to be accepted and returned in the way we live out the love of Jesus. We talk about love, but we form people through fear. We preach mercy, but we disciple for control.
Have you experienced this, pressure confused with passion, and metrics confused with maturity. I’ve seen people carry deep shame for not living up to standards God never asked them to meet and it is devastating to people’s spiritual identity and the mission of the church.
And even now, in a much healthier rhythm, I still catch myself slipping into hustle-mode, believing that if I don’t produce enough, lead well enough, or fix everything around me, I’m somehow less worthy.
This isn’t the way of Jesus.
NOTE: There is of course a need to live out Jesus in your gifts and that includes serving in a church context. We need that and we need it in a better context for shepherding and discipleship.
Jesus Didn’t Hustle
The life of Christ was many things, urgent at times, disruptive often. but never frenzied.5 He lived in a sacred sense of shalom. Never performative. Jesus didn’t hustle His way to holiness.6 He moved at the speed of Love.
When He invites us to “take my yoke upon you… and you will find rest for your souls,” He isn’t calling us to a hustle. He’s offering us a different kind of shepherding, one marked by humility, mercy, and presence. Follow this link for more on that kind of leading.
But so many churches, while preaching grace, disciple people in fear.
We build cultures where burnout is seen as faithfulness.
We equate spiritual growth with spiritual productivity.
We tell people God loves them… and then hand them a list to prove it.
No wonder people are walking away.
The Myth of Perfection
Rohr also names the damage done by misreading Matthew 5:48: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We turned that into a mandate for moral flawlessness instead of what it really is: a call to boundless love.7
Perfection, in Jesus’ language, isn’t about never messing up. It’s about expanding love beyond what seems reasonable, even to enemies. It’s about letting God’s perfection flow through us, not manufacturing it ourselves.8
But we turned it into a weight. And people carried it until they broke.
If you’ve been hustling, hear me clearly: You can stop.
You don’t have to climb your way into God’s love. You don’t have to earn your way into grace. You don’t have to be perfect to be held.
The church doesn’t need more hustlers. It needs more people who are learning to rest in grace and be formed by love.
You can step off the treadmill. You can fall into mercy. You can breathe again.9
What Formation Could Be
Spiritual formation isn’t about spiritual accomplishment. It’s not about reaching a higher rung. It’s about becoming more open, more surrendered, more grounded in your belovedness. More transparent before God and those you are in covenant with.10
It looks like…
Slowing down enough to hear the voice of Love again.
Releasing shame-based religion for grace-centered transformation.
Letting prayer become presence, not performance.
Trusting that you are loved, not because you got it right, but because you belong to a God who is endlessly merciful.
Reflection Questions
Where have you felt pressure to perform spiritually?
How has the church hustle shaped your view of God, or yourself?
What would it look like to embrace a formation rooted in grace, not effort?
Where might Jesus be saying, “You can stop striving… and come rest”?
If you’ve been caught in the hustle, you’re not alone. And you’re not a failure. You’re tired. And grace is calling. Come down from the ladder. There’s nothing to prove. There’s only Love, waiting to catch you.
This Article was written by Dr. Will Ryan and Paul Dazet.
What does it look like to give all of yourself to Jesus?
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.”
DISCUSSION QUESTION: 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 “assets” of the kingdom for a short time. This is the circular dance of grace. (Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament by David A. DeSilva)
DISCUSSION QUESTION: If anyone from the group understands the dance of grace based on patronage please explain it to your group. This can be found in my book “This is the way to covenant community” on Page 161.
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.
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! It even becomes more uncomfortable as Christian Americans when you ask somebody if they love money. Nearly every American does. 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 I Timothy 6:10.
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.) Today, it would seem that money is root of more church problems and family dynamics than anything else I can think of. That’s why TOV doesn’t want much to do with it. It didn’t seem like Jesus wanted much to do with money and His version of first century “church” didn’t either. Have you ever considered the idea that Judas was the money keeper and the one-time Jesus was asked to pay for something it didn’t come from that bag, but from coins out of a fish his Father provided? What could that imply? Jesus didn’t own a church building but occasionally visited the temple which He does refer to as His father’s house.
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 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.
DISCUSSION QUESTION: How does God view your money? Does He even want it? Is the Money the World’s? But don’t we need money? Is it a “necessary evil?” of the world? How does it belong in a Jesus kingdom?
DISCUSSION QUESTION: We often say, TOV isn’t looking for a tithe. Discuss why a more Biblical perspective isn’t centered around “money or serving” but on deeper devotion of your “whole” person.
TOV ACTION NEEDS FOR YOUR DISCUSSION:
BECOME A MONTHLY “PATRON” PARTNER – Discuss how this mindset is different than a tithe
Sometimes we don’t give much to the donation boxes and it is hard to bless people when need arises. We want to bless generously. Consider gifting monthly so that we can buy people groceries, feed the hungry & homeless, and take a financial strain off a family for a season. There aren’t any tov salaries, mortgage payments or utilities to pay… all of your giving goes right to an ACTS 2 need. Together we can make a better kingdom investment. Right now We want to buy a car for another anonymous family and need $2500 that we don’t have.
We need car donations; we have a mechanic that will fix things. And we can give away these cars or sell them on the marketplace. If you know of someone selling a car ask them to donate it.
Giving: You don’t need to “make time or space” for God if all of your time, treasure and talents (sacred space) are His. In the same regard, you don’t need to consider giving a percentage of your financial resources if you are of the mindset that it is all His and you are merely the Spirit led steward of it.
Some have chosen to underwrite the few costs we have as “patron” partners. If you would like to dedicate a regular monthly amount, please do so here:
I have done justice and righteousness; do not leave me to my oppressors. Psalm 119:121 NASB
Justice and Righteousness – In a sense of Old Testament sovereignty, YHWH exhibited himself differently than the other “gods” the people of Israel were formerly aware of in Egypt. YHWH was concerned with a covenant partnership between Him and His chosen people that would be his ambassadors, and it was much established on the notion of two things – Justice and Righteousness. The Hebrew for righteousness is the word ṣedeq which typically takes a gloss of an ethical, moral standard based on the nature and will of God. In other words, the Lord is righteous.1 Justice is the word mišpāṭ. It is the divine governance of the created order. The way that God intended things to operate and called – TOV.
You may remember that the priestly breastplate or breastpiece of judgment (Hebrew: חֹשֶׁן ḥōšen) was a sacred breastplate worn by the High Priest of the Israelites, according to the Book of Exodus. In the biblical account, the breastplate is termed the breastplate of judgment (Hebrew: חֹשֶׁן מִשְׁפָּט ḥōšen mišpāṭ – Exodus 28:15), because the Urim and Thummim (Hebrew: הָאוּרִים וְהַתֻּמִּים hāʾūrīm wəhattummīm) were placed upon it (Exodus 28:30). These elements of the breastplate are said in the Exodus verse to carry the judgment (Hebrew: מִשְׁפָּט mišpāṭ) of God concerning the Israelites at all times. According to the Talmud, the wearing of the Hoshen atoned for the sin of errors in judgment on the part of the Children of Israel. 2 So as you can see, justice was a theme tied carefully into the way that the priest represented God to the people and the people to God and “justice” played an important measure.
When you first think about justice, you might think about a court, perhaps even words like wrath, or anger, judgment, malice, retribution, avenging, some notion of getting what is deserved. But those thoughts are actually contrary to the grace notion and justice of God. That was exactly His point to Israel. YHWH was different and was going to redefine what justice meant and looked like to His people. Yet 3500 years later it seems many Christians are still holding to the kind of justice that God said was contrary to His very nature.
Mišpāṭ is to cooperate with God in bringing His order to the world. It is to extend the Garden to the rest of creation, a task, by the way, that was given as the Prime Directive in the Genesis account. “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” “Rule over” does not mean exploit. It means to care for, to tend to, to cultivate, to nourish, to protect—it means precisely what God does and would do with His own creation. Insofar as you bring God’s “rule” into your world, you do mišpāṭ. Notice please that this is active involvement, not theoretical or passive contemplation of engagement.3
Exodus 34:6-7 is the key text that you are likely tired of me regurgitating. God is benevolent, compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, full of ḥesed (no English equivalent), truthful, preserving ḥesed for generations, forgiving, providing oversight; and in these features partners with us as his treasured possessions in covenant order. TOV has a good deal to play into this. In Genesis we see God using his “priests” to continue to cultivate God’s sense of order and do good. The Torah then becomes the handbook of life until Jesus comes. Living in justice and righteousness means living in devotion to the will of God committed to being a complete representative of the Creator as much as humanly possible. The first century word for that is “agent,” and Yeshua is a full expression of what that means; He becomes the fulfillment of identity and purpose based on justice and righteousness.
There is also a sense of communal justice in the Bible, particularly for Israel.
Two Modes of Biblical Justice according to the Bible Project4
Retributive/Recompense This mode of justice is like the punishment/reward system in a court of law, ensuring there is recompense, repayment, or acquittal for just or unjust behavior. If you steal five dollars, you have to pay back five dollars. If you’re wrongly accused of stealing five dollars, you should not have to pay, and you should even be repaid for the trouble of being accused. Deuteronomy 25:1 – If there is a dispute between men and they go to court (lit. to the mishpat, place of justice), and the judges (Heb. shophetim) decide their case, and they declare the innocent to be in the right, and they will declare the guilty to be in the wrong.
Restorative This mode of justice is about making sure that everyone in the community is treated fairly and given what they are due. It’s about granting people rights by changing unjust practices or laws. For example, in Deuteronomy 18:1-3, the Levites didn’t inherit land because they served all the tribes by working in the temple. And so, the other tribes were to give a tithe (one tenth) of their produce as offerings in the temple. This temple tax is called the Levites’ mishpat (“their right,” see also Deut. 21:17 “right of the firstborn”). In Israel, there was another group in their society who had unique mishpat: the quartet of the vulnerable, meaning the widow, orphan, immigrant, and the poor.
Deuteronomy 16:20: “That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”
The first words: “That which is altogether just” are just two words in the Hebrew “tsedeq tsedeq.” The same word is repeated twice. In Semitic languages when a word is repeated it usually indicates that the word is to be intensified or emphasized. 5
We don’t live under communal Israel and their laws though. So, what do we make of all this? I want to finish with a sense of deconstructing our modern views and what we want justice to be based on our desires of God for our life and world as compared to what the Bible presents it as. Christians demand justice so much today. People who have been offended, abused, victims of racism, etc. They are all crying for justice. Certain politicians have been accused of sexual harassment and the victims are demanding justice. What do they want? They want to see that person punished, resign from office, put in jail. What is it that they saying? The victim wants to see the perpetrator suffer as they suffered. They want fairness, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Is that what God is talking about as a condition to inherit what God has given you? 6
We know this wasn’t the way of Jesus. In Matthew 5:38-39 Jesus is clear not to repay evil for evil or as it says in Deuteronomy 16:20; “tsedeq tsedeq” which could be rendered as “just justice.” 7 There is indeed the need for justice, and we should pursue justice, but we must pursue a just justice, and that isn’t ours to address but God’s and God alone. In other words, justice isn’t for you… let it go and let the Lord heal. Perhaps occasionally we are part of the agents of that justice, but more often not.
Psalm 96:10-11a, 13Say among the nations, “YHWH reigns; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. He will judge the peoples with equity.” Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice… Be before YHWH for He is coming; He is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the people in His faithfulness.
Notice that God’s judgment is in the positive. It’s not brimstone and fire. He judges with equity; He judges in righteousness and in His faithfulness. He judges to SAVE the humble of the earth. Interesting that we often associate God’s judgement with God’s wrath. It is a common human desire to let God handle our enemies with vengeance. Sometimes life doesn’t seem fair when horrible people seem to have great success in life. We want God to judge the wicked in anger. Vengeance is a powerful human desire. But the answer to vengeance is vindication, not judgement. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord… for YHWH will vindicate His people” (paraphrased from Deut. 32:35-36). To vindicate (God acting in judgement) is a completely different word in the Hebrew language: יָדִ֣ין (yadin).
Covenantal commitment is a flowing stream, this Biblical understanding of justice should inspire us to not only critique the world as it is, but to align ourselves with that which is Godly in the universe, working towards the day when all human beings are nurtured, respected, and be reclaimed to the identify that God has purposed them for.
Ironically, perhaps your need for retributive justice around you is exactly what is holding you back from the kind of relentless covenant partnership that God has destined you for. Perhaps today is the day you simply let God be the judge. Let God be the agent of restoration and use you as His hands and feet to physically manifest grace, love, compassion, and mercy which means healing.
Stigers, H. G. (1999). 1879 צָדֵק. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 752). Moody Press. ↩︎
Zevachim (Hebrew: זְבָחִים; lit. “Sacrifices”) is the first tractate of Seder Kodashim (“Holy Things”) of the Mishnah, the Talmud and the Tosefta. This tractate discusses the topics related to the sacrificial system of the Temple in Jerusalem, namely the laws for animal and bird offerings, and the conditions which make them acceptable or not, as specified in the Torah, primarily in the book of Leviticus (Lev 1:2 and on). The tractate has fourteen chapters divided into 101 mishnayot, or paragraphs. There is a Gemara – rabbinical commentary and analysis – for this tractate in the Babylonian Talmud, and no Gemara in the Jerusalem Talmud. ↩︎
If you have ever attended TOV you notice that there are new “things” being built all the time. Gardens, trails, crosses, structures, tents, and the list goes on. What is that about? Well, it encompasses several things. First there is some sacred garden/temple thinking and language happening. We believe the TOV grounds serve as a tabernacle or dwelling for our community and we want to “build into that” mindset. We also encourage gifting, and several people just want to come share their gifts. But there is also something deeper. TOV is encouraging tribal building. Sometimes what is happening on the outside is a picture of what is happening on the inside. That is why the grounds are vibrant. It is a picture of the tribes that dwell here. Bible studies, baptism, healing, hope, communion and so much more.
Heaven and earth shall praise Him, the seas and everything that moves in them. For God will save Zion and build the cities of Judah, so that they may live there and possess it. The descendants of His servants will inherit it, and those who love His name will live in it. Psalm 69:34-36 NASB
What are we supposed to be doing as good citizens of the Kingdom of Jesus?Live there and possess it – According to David’s poem, the citizens of the kingdom will not just live in the land (yāšab – sit, remain, dwell), they will also own the land (yāraš – take possession of, inherit).1
This verse was written more than 2500 years ago, long before we started the TOV community. But every generation that starts up in the name of YAHWEH starts with a similar charge. Remember Micah 6:8, Matthew 16 & 28, Acts 2? But what is interesting is the context of land has changed. In other words, what was the base of cultivation shifted from place to place and generation to generation. It was not so much about the specific land itself being sacred, but about the calling and communion to make it sacred.
Church – The word “church” in a modern-day paradigmatic expression is without much textual support. I have written much on the ekkelsia (Greek) and qehelah (Hebrew). Expedition 44 has done a one-year series on the church. Perhaps what we night simply consider is what is conveyed in the first church, Acts 2:42 is well known, They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Continually devoting – This is a mouthful of Greek–proskarterountes. The word is derived from pros (toward) and kartereo (to be strong, steadfast and firm). The picture we see from this word is a group of people totally committed. They were strong and steadfast in their pursuit of understanding and cooperating. They did not settle for mediocre. They wanted all they could get.2 We would describe these people as ones who hung on every word, zealous, hungry, perhaps even demanding. Does that describe a TOVER?
There are many attributes of TOV and most of them are, well “good.” We are known for our generous, kind, and compassionate giving, our prayer, our devotion, our hearts, our food, pond baptism, our community, and so much more; but I pray that what really sets us apart is our relentless discipleship.
There is a flip side to a community tethered like this. Buried in the word above for devotion is the word, kartereo which entails bearing burdens and enduring severe hardship for someone or on their behalf willfully, Jesus uses a root of the word when he says “abide” in me. This thinking and action plan characterized the first century church. Today the “church” has largely lost this way of thinking.
Today we think of it as puppy dog infatuation, but the meaning of Jesus meant to be incredibly committed to someone, and the word covenant was used throughout the pages of scripture to define that relationship of those grafted by the kingdom of God.
The First Century knew a different kind of devotion. They literally lived with and for one another. The cared for ALL of each other’s need, loneliness, finances, work, teaching, raising children, provisions, and the list goes on. No one felt unwanted, unnecessary or ignored, at least if they were involved, and they should have been because that was actually what identified them as part of the community. How “involved” are you. Have you found your tribe here?
If someone gets hurt, does your time warrant you to simply help? If something needs fixed, can you be part of the solution? If toil is part of the process, can you transform it to cultivation that brings joy? If you rejoice does that bring rejuvenation to others? If someone is mourning, do you share in their needs?
I think we are done with “serving” in the “modern day sense” of feeling like your identity and worth are based on what you do for the “church”. Are you tired of a church that is only a building or a weekly obligation? Do you hunger and thirst for a community of belonging? Do you want a community of acceptance under grace? Do you want a comunity that disciples you to a depth of relational interaction based on the WORD of God like nothing you have ever known? I do. I long for the peace of being continually devoted to the community of God’s redeemed. I am ready to give all (TIME TREASURE TALENT) I have to that community. I need these people in my life.3 I want a life that is continually devoted to them. That is covenant, and that requires a tribe of deeply devoted people.
I don’t entirely like the term build, because in our culture it comes with materialism. But the Bible’s term for edification actually means to build each other up. That is the core of what we are doing here…
WE ARE shepherding each other. How is your building “SPACE” coming together?
If you read my article earlier this month on Demons, you will know that I lean somewhere close to Walton in my views of demonology but still gravitate towards a “fall” of spiritual beings, which Walton would not describe in that sense. Walton points out that the bible doesn’t specifically use the word “fall” and Adam and Eve don’t actually “fall” in the sense of being cast out or demoted. I think he has made some great points to this regard, and I completely agree. In our original sin x44 series we brought out many of these points. He would then make the point that the bible actually never says that any of the spiritual being’s “fall” either. In my mind that one is a bit more controversial and where I slightly see things differently. I see a Deuteronomy 32 (Heiser) worldview in a sense of several other “falls” primarily concerned with spiritual beings which also involves human beings.
As a precursor to this conversation, I don’t necessarily like the term “fall” to describe Adam and Eve (as well as the serpent’s) banishment from the garden for many reasons, but I get the terminology traditionally applied. I do however see spiritual beings “falling” in the sense that they were created by the hand of God and are no longer aligned with Him in the heavenly cosmos. Therefore, I am ok with calling this a “dual fall” as people traditionally would understand it, to describe the free will intention of being’s pursuit away from God. In this sense we might think of it as God being high in the heavens, and the things of the world being low in an earthly realm. You might even describe a third realm as something associated with an underworld. In that sense, I am fine using the traditional term “fall” to describe what has happened to distance beings further from God’s sacred space. Even Walton titles a chapter “the fall” in his latest book simply because people know what we are referring to when we use the term.
DECONSTRUCTION: The Bible mentions Satan and spiritual beings, but it doesn’t actually give us much, and we likely conclude that we simply don’t have all those answers here. We don’t know what all the spiritual beings are, where they are now, and what has happened and will happen to them. We don’t have that story. What we do have is a different story about God’s covenant love to us that includes a few interesting things about spiritual beings along the way. What does the Bible give us in order to influence or make a faithful deduction from? We have a story of God’s unyielding covenant plan for us, the rest might be cloaked. 1
It is a fantastic read. One of my all-time favorites.
To be clear, the book explores a lot of areas that I don’t address here. This article is meant to address one part of the book, – the fall, which has been a personal interest of mine most of my life. In our interview we also approach theses subject matters:
Genesis 1: order and function
Previous material overview
New explorations in the first creation account
What is each day about?
Image of God- what is it about?
Creation out of nothing?
Genesis 1: Cosmic temple and rest
Previous material overview
Spreading order vs Spreading sacred space
Ruling vs relaxing on the 7th day
7 day inauguration?
Literary vs. Chronology
what does this means for human priesthood?
Genesis 2: The Garden and Trees
Previous material overview
Should we consider the garden to be a pristine paradise?
Should we think that we are headed back to eden (Revelation does have some parallels to the Gen 2 account)
Genesis 2: Adam and Eve
Previous material overview
Nakedness and the clothing of flesh
What does it mean that they are archetypes? Does this mean they were not “real”?
Humans created immortal?
Were they “perfect”?
Genesis 3: The Fall
Previous material overview
Serpent- How should we understand his role?
Death before the fall?
Is the origin of sin the focus of Gen 3? Are Adam and Eve being punished for sin?
Romans 5- How is Paul using the Gen 3 account there?
Genesis 3: The Pronouncement
What is going on in Gen 3:16?
Should we consider it messianic?
Why the guardian with the sword?
Genesis and science (we actually didn’t get into this because we have discussed it with him several other times in other interviews.)
Previous material overview
What are some of your new explorations in this area?
Is the Bible compatible with evolutionary models (godless models)?
If I have learned one thing from John over the years, it is to approach the interpretation of scripture more faithfully. This one is a lifelong endeavor of joy, and I am still learning! He starts out his latest work similar to his other works giving a methodology to his study, but in this case, he denotes over 50 pages to it rather than just a few. I won’t do that here (but I love what he does in the book to teach a better framework before he launches into it.), I do think we need to set the table slightly here before we start this discussion as well. Some think Walton is controversial. I don’t. As you read this article you are going to find that I nearly completely agree with him, especially in a purely exegetical sense, however – I desire to make more ontological, philosophical, and theological deductions than he might be willing to do. I will say that I think those that find him controversial fall into three camps. 1.) They want to be traditional and feel they are “standing strong.” I don’t have a lot of room for this take on the Bible. Essentially it is those that are willing to put tradition over the exegesis of the text. 2.) You don’t really have sound hermeneutics; you don’t understand the parameters. I think there is a good deal of this. People that don’t have sound framework or a good theological lens of the Bible. They don’t have the Bible in harmony. 3.) They just want a debate. I have some good friends in apologetics but honestly, I can’t stand the hierarchical “want to prove something” debating within primarily the evangelical circles. I think we need to get back to the edification of the church through a positive Mars Hill style teaching. Walton is very good here. I think there are 2-3 theologians that are ahead of their time that we will be reading in 100 years (such as we do with CS Lewis) and Walton might very well be the best we have.
Genesis 3 and the fall is difficult to interpret for many reasons. One of which is because you first might need to interpret Genesis 1 & 2 and decide whether you land in the recursive or sequential camp, believe it or not there will be implications along the way. It is also quite interesting because we have the Adam and Eve narrative in Genesis 3 and from that point on, we never hear anything else about it in the rest of the OT, and barely in the new. Chapter 3 is also sometimes interpreted under a poetic lens which might belong to a speculative type of wisdom literature that questions the paradoxes and harsh realities of life. This characterization is determined by the narrative’s format, settings, and the plot. The form of Genesis 3 is also shaped by its vocabulary, making use of various puns and double entendres.2 Furthermore, the Hebrew of a few words really does matter, and I would argue that we can’t arrive at an exact meaning for many reasons. The serpent, is identified in Genesis 3:1 as an animal that was more crafty than any other animal made by God.3 The Hebrew arum עָר֔וּם (Gen 3:1), is traditionally translated “crafty/shrewd” but could be connected linguistically with Genesis 2:25 עָרוֹם (arom) sharing the same root word.4 In this sense, traditionally the text has been read with a connotation of mental “nakedness” (innocence), yielding a more direct antonym for “shrewd” and heightening the irony. Then to complicate matters further, you have the realization that these words in the older Hebrew had no vowel signs which could render them to be understood slightly differently. Some might say this becomes a study of Philology. The Masoretic Texts and LXX are useful to fix meanings of terms and expressions, but they also are not the Gospel. I spend a lot of time describing contranym language in the ancient texts in blogs here so if you are a regular x44 watcher/reader, you will be tracking. Finally, if we are reading the narrative as if it intended to primarily communicate the origin of sin, I would question your doctrinal premises. All this said, I still believe we can come to a faithful “take away” of the text.
The serpent as the challenger
Was the spiritual being (serpent) in the Garden of Eden Satan? Of course, tradition and extra biblical sources tell us that, but do we really get that from the pages of scripture? The Bible doesn’t give us that in the same regard that it doesn’t tell us that the challenger in Job is Satan. If you believe either of those it would be a deduction from somewhere else, the text itself doesn’t render those takeaways. Walton calls the serpent a chaos creature that he doesn’t frame as evil. He says, “The serpent never suggests that they should eat the fruit, though by questioning what reasons they have for not doings so, it leads them (Adam and Eve) in that Direction… (the serpent) serves in the role of catalyst. It should not be identified as a tempter, nor should it should not be considered inherently evil. Certainly, it should not be seen as an evil force already in the world. “5 So, I agree with most of what Walton says here. We have a conundrum that has to be addressed. We both agree for numerous reasons that the serpent can’t be evil and be in the garden. I will spend more time on this later, but in my opinion, allowing an “evil” snake in a sacred garden wouldn’t align with God’s order. This leaves three options. The first is Walton’s option – It isn’t evil it is just a chaos “monster.” The second option would be understanding it as dual fall happening together (my view) – the serpent is falling as he is “tempting” Adam and Eve. The third view is the traditional view which doesn’t work in my opinion (but I will spend some time on it further on) – The snake is already evil and somehow gains access to the garden. As we explore these three options, the question hinging on this then is, “was the snake displaying sinful (The Greek term for sin “hamartano” (ἁμαρτάνω) – “to miss the mark”) or evil action? I agree that Adam and Eve are to blame for their own decisions (neither I, nor Walton, or Heiser would agree with any theory close to original sin or total depravity here, we are only responsible for our own actions). Is the snake also acting in free will in a way that (using the Bible’s own definition) – would be missing the mark for a free will thinking spiritual being? I would say traditionally the snake has always been portrayed as cunning and I would agree. It is also interesting (but I agree with Walton, we aren’t given an exegetical answer here) that the snake is portrayed as a challenger which is also representative of the challenger in the book of job. The question that will define this is whether or we can interpret the text to indicate that the free will serpent had “evil” intention.
The Challenger of Job
X44 did a long video series on the book of Job. Is the challenger of Job a.) the Satan of the NT and/or b.) the same spiritual being as the snake in the garden? We don’t know the answer to this directly from scripture. We know that the “challenger” of job is seemingly involved at a divine court or council meeting6, but the genre7 of the text would also come into play, as well as the timing as we make an educated assessment.
The language of the Book of Job, combining post Babylonian Hebrew and Aramaic influences, indicates it was composed during the Persian period (540–330 BCE), with the poet using Hebrew in a learned, literary manner.8 Although controversial, the story of Job could take place much much earlier and be handed down orally over generations. If you haven’t learned this yet, our lens of theology on a particular subject is influenced by other personal views of theology in regard to other subjects. Our theology needs to fit from one framework to another and be in harmony. The difficulty with rendering the challenger of Job as the NT Satan figure is that either has him in cahoots with God after the garden (which most people can’t -and rightly shouldn’t -theologically accept according to the order and character of God). Or that leaves you either saying it simply isn’t Satan, or we don’t know (certainly seems like the simplest choice without much in stake), or it is Satan, and the story takes place before the garden banishment, which you might be surprised to hear is my view. I go with the simple we don’t know here but also would suggest that if we are going to start guessing I lean towards the challenger of Job as the NT Satan figure. But this becomes very complicated.
Adam was the first man, but the Bible doesn’t say Eve was the first woman, in fact quite contrary, it says there were no other suitable partners. I am sure you have also heard stories of a first spirit wife named Lilith. The implication is there were other woman and thus other people. In other words, we have the story of Adam and Eve in the mountain high cosmic temple garden (that I believe were functioning as the first priests) but you also have the rest of humanity in lower earth (notice the Tolkien language). At first you will challenge me on this, but the more you think about it the more you are going to find that theologically the view makes the most reconciliation or harmony of the texts. This view then would have the challenger of job playing a role in the divine council, then doing something similar in the garden. This is when you could still reconcile Walton’s view. The challenger might not be inherently evil, but just positionally fulfilling his role or function in the divine council as a challenger and do so in the garden similarly to what he did in the book of Job. But I have to “question that,” there are too many things that don’t align.
The Challenger (serpent) in the garden missed the mark
I believe the serpent “falls” in the garden which then sets the tone for the other spiritual beings to follow suit.
Genesis 3:2-4: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
I am going to land more traditionally lining up with the way people have thought about this text largely over the last 3000+ years. In Genesis 3:4, the serpent’s statement, “Ye shall not surely die,” plainly read seems like an act of deception. This declaration directly contradicts God’s warning, suggesting that disobedience would not lead to death, which sets the stage for Eve’s disobedience and the subsequent “fall” from a life-giving provisional hand and tree of grace. The serpent’s words create doubt and lead to Eve’s temptation. I would say that this is where the serpent crosses the line and thus “falls.” If you have deconstructed enough to still be with me, then continue the line of logic – the snake whose vocation was to challenge is then kicked out of the garden, but the Bible doesn’t say this again, it has to be deduced (but that’s ok, that is part of theology). However, don’t get me wrong, the banishment was similar to Adam and Eve’s. I don’t see the snake actually losing his function completely because he was off the mark, neither did Adam and Eve as Walton points out. I see the “fall” in both cases then happening as archetype’s of what is to come. Both the snake and Adam and Eve make their own choices to be separated. The garden story then simply describes the beginning of “the fall” or the handing over to their decisions/desires, both of which are to seize wisdom for themselves and become like God.9 Could the job story be chronologically slightly after this? Maybe but it doesn’t fit the “fall” narrative as well. I see the deception of the snake being met with perhaps a demotion of the heavenlies (cast down to lower earth to crawl on its belly.) The snake is clearly cursed. This movement by God then has the snake feeling like he was wrongly demoted (as he might argue he was just playing his kingdom given role of a challenger) and eventually aligns other spiritual beings that follow him “down” likely becoming his “minions.” (Although I will admit, this notion is lacking exegetically as well, I will get to that.) From there perhaps the challenger of job and serpent seems to arise as the leader of the cosmic bad guys in the second temple period and New Testament. Nearly all of the intertestamental apocalypse literature seems to point this way. If they had that in mind, perhaps we should too, but it also doesn’t make it true. Of course, your view of inerrancy and the canon is going to influence thoughts here as well as you make your own decisions.
Do we get the answer in Hebrew? That is a great question, and it is really complicated. As I described in the inro the Hebrew is rather difficult to make any kind of deduction from in my opinion. Is there any semantic link or word play going on with nakedness or a sense of transparency? Could you interpret in Gen 2:25, as an adjective (in a ‘static’ mode) ‘naked’ – without a veil (seen differently from many other beasts that are covered or veiled by hair, bristle, quills, spines, plates)? In this sense it could be explained that the Serpent (spiritual being) claimed to be a “being without a (mental) veil”, and capable, too – in this state – to help others to remove the “veil from their mind’s eyes”. Of course that denotes ill intentions. And in this capacity the Serpent presented himself to Eve, claiming to be a revealer to her, since her ‘closed eyes’ were not capable to ‘see’ (Gen 3:5, 7). In the matter we are discussing (orumim/orum) we are facing with a kind of ‘semantic oscillation’, where two terms could be derived by the same conceptual root.
It is true that the Hebrew word and phrasing could be interpreted without a negative or evil intention – “missing the mark” connotation. For instance, in the ten times the word arum was used in the book of Proverbs, it pointed towards a positive attribute. To be arum was a good thing, and it was always directly compared to a naive (peh’ti) person or a fool (eh’wil). You could say that if we take the Proverb’s use of the word arum and apply it to the Genesis account, we can see that the snake was the crafty prudent character and humanity was the fool. To take this notion one step further, this specific root can only be found (arguably) in a negative connotation in one other place in the Bible, Job 5:12. In other words out of 11 occurrences 9 seem positive and two could be interpreted as negative. I always found it interesting that Jesus took the concept of the shrewd serpent and applied it to his own disciples in Matthew 10:16-20. So coming back to the text, I would argue that the word arum could go either way here, so then we go back to textures of interpretation – what does the context give us? Do we get the answer in 3:14:
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
As I allude to earlier, the use of the word “curse” is key here. Many have made the point that God doesn’t curse Adam and Eve, but the serpent is cursed by God. What does that tell you? We don’t have that answer but I have to say the text certainly infers something negative in the curse. I have a difficult time reading this (even after much deconstruction and unbiased training) to read it without a negative connotation. (i.e. does God curse chaos monsters?)
Could a fallen or “evil” Satan exist in the garden?
Okay, what about the traditional view—could this have been an evil (already fallen) Satan who showed up in the garden to tempt Eve? There are a number of problems with this that I am not convinced can be reconciled within a solid hermeneutical approach to the text. Perhaps the only way this works in a traditional sense would be to say that the serpent was created good but fell before the garden story. Some literalists lean toward this view, suggesting that Satan was essentially “possessing” a snake. Therefore, when it ‘spoke’—which you might argue a snake cannot do—it was Satan speaking through it as an already fallen, evil being.
The difficulty, then, is how does an evil snake get into a sacred garden? God’s order seems to be disrupted, but the question is whether this could be possible. Everything in the garden was good, except Satan, and perhaps the (could you say) “evil” of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In this view, God did not create evil; evil is the very antithesis of God. But regardless of one’s view, there is a fruit in the garden referred to as “evil.” That seems to imply some conception of evil existing in the garden.
Now, we need to address the translation issue here. The Hebrew word for “evil” in Genesis is ra’ (רַע). However, ra’ does not inherently mean “evil” in the sense of a malevolent force or being. It is more accurately translated as “bad,” “disorder,” or “calamity.” The concept of “evil” as a metaphysical, moral entity distinct from God is not necessarily what is being communicated here. Instead, ra’ can refer to anything that is not aligned with tov (goodness/order), but it is not necessarily the ontological evil that later Christian theology would define.
In the context of the garden, the focus is on “the knowledge of good (tov) and ra’.” The emphasis is not on the intrinsic evil of the tree but on the human choice to engage with ra’—to experience and define for themselves what is good and what is not. It’s about autonomy, the desire to determine what is good and what is bad apart from God’s established order.
We see the consequences of choosing ra’ in Genesis 6:5, where it says, “The LORD saw that the wickedness (ra’) of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil (ra’) continually.” The ra’ in Genesis 6:5 is not some inherent, ontological evil but the chaotic, disordered state that humanity descended into after choosing ra’ in the garden. It is a natural progression—a consequence of rejecting tov and embracing autonomy.
In Romans 1:24-28, Paul describes a similar dynamic, where God “hands them over” to their desires. God is not directly causing evil but allowing humanity to experience the consequences of choosing ra’ over tov. In this way, God’s “wrath” is not active punishment but a passive allowance for people to reap the consequences of their choices. This same dynamic is at play in the garden. God is not bringing evil into the garden; rather, He is allowing Adam and Eve the freedom to choose, to step outside of His tov order, and thus enter a state of ra’.
For instance, in Isaiah 45:7, God says, “I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create calamity (ra’).” Here, ra’ is not moral evil but calamity or disorder brought as a consequence. And “make” and “create” are two different words in hebrew where God makes shalom and “orders” (br’) ra’. Similarly, in Amos 3:6, it says, “When disaster (ra’) comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?” Again, the emphasis is not on moral evil but on God allowing or ordaining calamity as a form of judgment or consequence.
Therefore, the ra’ in the garden is not an ontological evil but the potential for chaos, disorder, and calamity—a choice that leads to a state of ra’, as seen in Genesis 6:5. When humanity chooses to step outside of God’s good order, what remains is ra’—a state of disorder and chaos. This is not about a fallen Satan bringing ontological evil into a sacred space but about humanity’s choice to step outside of God’s established order and thus bring ra’ into God’s good creation.
Thus, the serpent, then, functions as a tempter, not a cosmic evil being, leading humanity to embrace ra’ as the absence of tov, aligning with the pattern seen throughout the biblical narrative of God “handing them over” to the consequences of their choices. This interpretation avoids the theological problem of making God the author of evil while still accounting for the serpent’s role in the narrative.
But getting back to the traditional view and consideration of it; through the snake, if you can reconcile evil being allowed in the sacred garden then perhaps Satan falling early (possibly before the creation) and showing up in the garden can work for you. But again, the traditional interpretation hinges on the assumption that the serpent represents a pre-fallen Satan who is already evil. However, as discussed earlier, the Hebrew concept of ra’ is not inherently “evil” as in a cosmic, malevolent force. It is more accurately understood as disorder, calamity, or badness—essentially a deviation from tov (goodness/order). This nuance becomes crucial when considering the nature of the serpent and the so-called “evil” present in the garden.
If we accept that ra’ in Genesis does not inherently indicate a cosmic evil but rather the potential for disorder and chaos, then the serpent may not be some intrinsically evil being but rather a creature operating within the framework of ra’—a tempter, yes, but not a pre-fallen Satan in the classic sense. The text itself does not state that the serpent was Satan, nor that Satan was a fallen being at this point.
Satan put the words in Eve’s mind that caused or gave way for her to make a decision to disobey God’s command. That warranted banishment by God to both Eve and the snake, who traditionally is viewed as Satan, an instrument of evil. But here, we run into further problems. If we adopt the traditional view that Satan had already fallen, we are left with the question of how a fallen, evil being could be allowed into the sacred garden—a space characterized by the presence of God’s tov order.
Some might say that God “allows” Satan into the Garden similar to the book of Job, which could be seen as a test for Adam and Eve, giving them the choice to obey God’s command or succumb to temptation. Yet, in the Job narrative, Satan is depicted as a member of the divine council (Job 1:6-12), not a pre-fallen being operating as an evil entity. The Satan figure in Job is portrayed more as an accuser or tester, not the cosmic evil adversary developed in later Christian theology. Thus, to read Genesis 3 through the Job lens is problematic and potentially anachronistic.
I don’t see God operating with the enemy this way. To me, seeing God negotiating with the enemy is theologically problematic. If God is negotiating with a pre-fallen Satan to test humanity, this casts God in a complicit role in the introduction of ra’ (disorder) into the sacred space, making Him a participant in the very disorder He is meant to oppose.
Others wonder if by presenting the choice between obedience and disobedience, God established a framework for humans to exercise their moral agency or responsibility. But this still has God and Satan in cahoots. From a theological standpoint, some Reformed and Calvinist traditions suggest that God’s sovereignty encompasses even the activities of Satan, allowing Satan to enter the Garden as part of a divine test. However, this framework positions God as the author of evil, effectively undermining the character of God as wholly good and holy.
This interpretation also fails to account for the consistent biblical narrative that God is not the author of ra’ but rather the one who brings order from chaos (Genesis 1:1-3). To frame Satan as an already fallen being actively working with God in the garden disrupts this order and introduces theological inconsistencies.
All of this has us asking, did God “allow” a “fallen” Satan to tempt his sacred image bearers? Well, God certainly allows us to be tempted, as is clear in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 4:1; 1 Corinthians 10:13). But the context of Genesis 3 has a different feel. The serpent is depicted as a cunning creature, not as a cosmic enemy of God. There is no explicit indication that this serpent is Satan or that it is a fallen being acting in opposition to God’s order.
I am not sure the best theological plan has sacred space invaded by literally the most evil entity the world has ever known and God seemingly working with Him. Everything we read in the New Testament is contrary to this. Satan is depicted as the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), the “accuser of the brethren” (Revelation 12:10), and a “roaring lion” seeking to devour (1 Peter 5:8)—but these depictions are framed in a post-fall, post-Genesis context. The New Testament portrays Satan as having already been cast down, not as an evil entity roaming freely in God’s sacred space.
Did Satan’s place with God change later in the Old Testament? Could the “fall” have even been later when the extra-biblical material got so apocalyptic? Possibly. This is an option for a later fall, but again, it goes against the traditional view of an already evil, pre-fallen Satan in the Garden.
The real issue here is that the traditional view seems to require theological gymnastics that complicate the narrative and obscure the focus of Genesis 3. The narrative seems more concerned with humanity’s choice to step outside of God’s tov order and embrace ra’, not with the cosmic conflict between God and a fallen Satan. Therefore, to frame the serpent as an already fallen Satan may be to import later theological constructs into the Genesis text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself within its own ancient Near Eastern context.
When did Satan “Fall”
As we continue our last set of questions we then start to ask, when exactly did Satan and the other spirits fall? Before creation, during early Genesis, towards the end of the OT, or are they continuing to fall until the day of judgment? One of the more enigmatic verses in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells his disciples, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” -Luke 10:18. Hesier points out, perhaps the most common interpretation is that Jesus is seeing or remembering the original fall of Satan. This option makes little sense in context. Prior to the statement, Jesus had sent out the disciples to heal and preach that the kingdom of God had drawn near to them (Luke 10:1–9). They return amazed and excited by the fact that demons were subject to them in the name of Jesus (10:17). Jesus then says, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”10 Personally, I view this as an already not yet. It was a Christus Victor, at the cross, CS Lewis style regaining the keys over death victory. In this sense I think the words “like lightning from heaven” was a very clever word play of double proportion that Jesus seems quite well known for. The language style used by Luke (“I saw”) was apocalyptic in prophetic visions, especially in the book of Daniel (Dan 4:10; 7:2, 4, 6–7, 9, 11, 13, 21). But I also don’t see the final culmination of this until the second coming of Christ. Therefore, I see it as past (Satan falling seems to be how everyone else in that generation would have interpreted it) and yet to come. This fits my theology well in first understanding how the intended audience would have interpreted it, then applying it to the modern day “see it all” lens that we have for everything biblical. To sum it up, I agree with Walton that the Bible never actually describes or concretely gives us the details of a fall, but I think it is a logical and theological deduction. This conclusion seems obvious, since the New Testament identifies the serpent as Satan or the devil (Rev 12:9). The implication of seeing Eden through ancient Near Eastern eyes is that God was not the only divine being. God had created humankind as his imagers and tasked them with bringing the rest of the world outside Eden under control—in effect, expanding Eden through the rest of creation. God’s will was disrupted when an external supernatural tempter (I think challenger is a better word), acting (cunningly) autonomously against God’s wishes, succeeded in deceiving Eve.11
Satan in Ezekiel 28 & Isaiah 14
Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah 14:12-15 are pivotal passages often cited to support the traditional view that Satan was already a fallen, evil being by the time he appears in the garden of Eden. However, a closer examination of these texts, along with a more nuanced understanding of the Hebrew language and ancient Near Eastern context, suggests a different narrative. Rather than depicting a pre-creation fall of Satan, these texts situate the divine rebel’s fall within the context of pride and hubris connected to earthly rulers and their supernatural counterparts.
Both Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 are structured as mashal, a Hebrew term meaning a “comparative story” or “taunt.” The prophets are not merely describing historical kings but using these figures as representative echoes of the original deceiver in Eden. In both cases, the kings of Tyre and Babylon embody the characteristics and trajectory of the divine rebel in Genesis 3.
Isaiah 14:4 explicitly introduces the passage as a mashal against the king of Babylon. The text reads:
“You will take up this taunt (mashal) against the king of Babylon” (Isa 14:4).
The prophet is comparing the king’s pride and downfall to that of a celestial being who sought to elevate himself above the stars of God—a clear echo of the serpent’s desire to corrupt humanity’s allegiance to God in Genesis 3. This heavenly being in Isaiah 14 is depicted as seeking to ascend the divine council, placing himself above the other divine beings, only to be cast down to the earth (erets), the realm of the dead.
Similarly, in Ezekiel 28, the prophet uses the king of Tyre as a comparative figure. The king, adorned with precious stones and positioned as a guardian cherub, is described as being in Eden, the garden of God. The language is strikingly similar to descriptions of divine beings in other ancient Near Eastern texts, portraying this being as resplendent, powerful, and shining—an image associated with the divine council.
“You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone was your covering…
You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.” (Ezekiel 28:13-14)
The king’s pride and hubris are directly connected to the serpent’s role in Genesis 3, echoing the desire to elevate oneself above one’s appointed station, leading to downfall.
The kings of Tyre and Babylon, like the serpent and the first humans in Eden, chose ra’ over tov, disorder over divine order. The Hebrew word ra’ is frequently translated as “evil,” but its primary meaning is closer to “bad,” “disorder,” or “calamity.” In the garden narrative, Adam and Eve’s choice to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (tov and ra’) was not a choice between moral opposites but between divine order and chaos.
The same choice is portrayed in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. The king of Tyre’s exaltation to divine heights and his subsequent casting down is framed as a choice to pursue self-exaltation (ra’) over alignment with God’s order (tov). This choice mirrors the serpent’s enticement of Eve—to become “like gods,” knowing good and evil, a pursuit of autonomy apart from God’s appointed order.
In Isaiah 14, the king of Babylon is likened to helel ben shachar, the morning star. This term, later translated as Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate, refers to Venus, the celestial body that rises brilliantly in the morning but is quickly overtaken by the sun, symbolizing a being who seeks to ascend but is inevitably cast down.
“How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12)
The imagery here is not about Satan being named “Lucifer” but about the hubristic attempt to ascend to divine status, only to be brought low. The term Lucifer became associated with Satan through later Christian tradition, but the original context is a mashal, a comparative story about a celestial being seeking to usurp divine authority—a theme that resonates with the serpent’s ambition in Eden.
Adam and the Divine Rebel
Heiser’s critique of the Adam view is that it misreads the prophetic texts. In Genesis 3, Adam is not depicted as attempting to ascend to the divine council or exalt himself above the stars of God. Instead, he passively follows Eve in choosing ra’ over tov, effectively failing to uphold his divine vocation as an image-bearer.
In contrast, the divine rebel in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is characterized by active rebellion, pride, and the desire to ascend the divine council and claim divinity. The imagery of ascending to the mount of assembly (Isa 14:13) and walking among the fiery stones (Ezek 28:14) places this figure within the divine council, a realm Adam was never said to inhabit (though Eden was a mountain top garden- a divine council place).
The Rebel Spiritual Being and the Garden
In both prophetic texts, the hubris of thedivine rebel is the central theme. The king of Babylon, likened to the morning star, seeks to usurp divine authority, echoing the serpent’s enticement in Eden:
“You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly…
I will make myself like the Most High.’” (Isaiah 14:13-14)
This language mirrors the serpent’s enticement in Genesis 3:5, “You will be like gods.” The serpent’s offer was a lure to ascend beyond one’s station, to acquire wisdom apart from God’s ordained order. Thus, the divine rebel in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is not Adam, but a divine being who, like Adam, chose ra’ over tov—autonomy over submission, chaos over divine order.
By framing Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 as mashal, the prophets are not merely recounting historical events but drawing a comparative picture that connects the fall of earthly kings to the original divine rebel in Eden. The king of Tyre and the king of Babylon are embodying the traits of the serpent in Eden—choosing pride, self-exaltation, and rebellion against divine order.
This comparative approach underscores the consistency in biblical narrative. The fall in Eden was not an isolated event but part of a broader pattern of rebellion against divine order, echoing through earthly rulers and spiritual beings alike. The kings in Ezekiel and Isaiah are thus depicted as archetypes of the original deceiver, figures who, like the serpent, seek to exalt themselves above their appointed stations and are cast down as a consequence.
In this light, the prophetic use of mashal reinforces the connection between the garden narrative and the broader Deuteronomy 32 worldview, where human and spiritual rebellions are intertwined, illustrating how earthly kings align themselves with the fallen powers and perpetuate the same cycle of pride and destruction initiated in Eden.12
Does Revelation 12 talk about the fall of Satan and one-third of the Spiritual Beings?
In the Deuteronomy 32 worldview, we observe a series of pivotal dual falls involving both divine and human agents: the fall in Eden (Genesis 3), the transgressions of the sons of God in Genesis 6, and the divine disinheritance at Babel (Deuteronomy 32:8-9; Psalm 82). The question then arises: Is Revelation 12 depicting a fourth fall involving Satan and a third of the angels?
Many interpreters have traditionally viewed Revelation 12 as depicting a primordial rebellion occurring in Genesis 3, where Satan is thought to have taken a third of the angels with him in his fall. However, a close reading of the text reveals a different timing and context for the event. Rather than referring to an ancient, Edenic fall, Revelation 12 situates the conflict within the context of Christ’s first advent, aligning it with the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension of the Messiah.
The passage begins with the imagery of a woman clothed with the sun, representing Israel, giving birth to a male child “who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12:5). This is a direct allusion to the messianic prophecy of Psalm 2:8–9, a prophecy that concerns Christ’s rulership rather than a primeval angelic rebellion. The child is “caught up to God and to His throne,” an unmistakable reference to the ascension, not to any event in Eden.
Michael Heiser critiques the traditional interpretation, noting that there is no scriptural basis for locating Satan’s fall in Genesis 3. He writes:
“There isn’t a single verse in the entirety of Scripture that tells us (a) the original rebel sinned before the episode of Genesis 3, or (b) a third of the angels also fell either before humanity’s fall or at the time of that fall.” 13
Heiser further emphasizes that the timing of the conflict involving the third of the stars in Revelation 12 is explicitly linked to the incarnation and exaltation of Christ. This interpretation aligns with Daniel 8:10, where the stars represent faithful members of Israel and their suffering under hostile powers, rather than fallen angels.
Revelation 12:7–9 describes a heavenly conflict in which Michael and his angels expel the dragon and his host from heaven. This event is framed by the birth and exaltation of the Messiah, not by the events of Eden. John explicitly identifies the dragon as “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan” (Rev. 12:9), but he does not associate the casting down of the third of the stars with Genesis 3.
The chronological markers are unmistakable. The casting down of a third of the stars is connected directly to the birth, death, and ascension of Christ—not to a rebellion in Eden. Beale notes that the defeat of the dragon occurs through Christ’s resurrection and ascension, aligning this passage with the inauguration of the kingdom of God and the consequent expulsion of Satan and his host. 14
Moreover, Revelation 12:13–17 continues the narrative by focusing on the dragon’s pursuit of the woman and her offspring—those who “keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (v. 17). This further confirms the eschatological focus of the passage, centering on the Messiah’s mission and the ongoing conflict between Satan and the church rather than a primordial fall.
Thus, interpreting Revelation 12 as a description of a fall of angels in Genesis 3 is a misreading of the text. Instead, the passage situates the conflict firmly in the context of the first advent of Christ, emphasizing Satan’s defeat through the Messiah’s resurrection and enthronement—a defeat that inaugurates the kingdom of God and the dragon’s intensified assault on the followers of Christ. This view not only aligns with the internal chronology of Revelation but also maintains consistency with the broader Deuteronomy 32 worldview, where divine and human rebellions are framed within specific historical and eschatological contexts rather than a single, primeval fall.
So back to our options. Did Satan fall before creation? I don’t think so, it doesn’t make sense in the garden “fall” narrative. By the intertestamental period and the tempting of Jesus we clearly have a “fallen” Satan. We also have a D32 fallen world problem early in Genesis that seems impacted by “fallen” spiritual beings and likely Satan rising as the cosmic leader of the evil “fallen” spiritual forces by the NT; therefore, as I have made the case for – the clearest choice theologically lining up with the rest of the lens of the Bible is for a dual fall in the garden.
The other “fallen” spiritual beings
So, then what about the rest of them? Back to my article on demonology. We don’t really have clear answers here either. The NT certainly talks about demons. I will admit there isn’t much if anything biblically that ties Satan specifically to other “fallen” spiritual beings. Revelation 20:10 is our best and possibly only source: “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.” We also have Matthew 12:24 and Luke 11:15 also refer to Satan as the prince of demons, but that also could be interpreted a couple of different ways. But there is an inference I believe towards Satan being the leader of the cosmic fallen spirits at least by the time of the cross.
Conclusion
After working through all the options, I think you either need to sit back and agree with Walton that the Bible just doesn’t give us the answers. And I agree with Him. That is all we can concretely take away or say. If you decide to jump on the deducing train, you are going to have a wild ride, but hopefully I have given you some good framework for making a better theological choice.
This article was Written by Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Matt Mouzakis based in part on the foundational research of our latest book, PRINCIPALITIES, POWERS, AND ALLEGIANCES: Interpreting Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17, and Revelation 13 within a Deuteronomy 32 Worldview and research from our good friends Dr. John Walton, and the late Dr. Michael Heiser to whom we are both in deep gratitude towards.
WORKS CITED AND NOTES:
A good friend of mine likes to remind me of the traditional difference between deducing and deducting. Traditionally these words are rendered differently. “Deduce” refers to the process of reaching a logical conclusion or inference based on available information or evidence. Deduce is a transitive verb, related words are deduces, deduced, deducing, deductive, deductively and the noun form, deduction. It involves using reasoning or logical thinking to arrive at a particular deduction. “Deduct” means to subtract or take away an amount or value from a total. Deduct is a transitive verb, which is a verb that takes an object. Related words are deducts, deducted, deducting and the noun form deduction. Either can take the form of “deduction”. However, ARTHUR F. HOLMES made the point to the Evangelical Theological Society in his text, ORDINARY LANGUAGE ANALYSIS AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD that the terms become increasingly complicated in modern English, and specifically within theological applications, “deduct” finds a place in most biblical conversation, as exegetically you come to what the text offers to which you can deduce something logically, but then as you apply it towards modern application (such as life) you are making a “take away from the text” statement which could be more accurately described as something “deducted.” Holmes and many others since them have continued to make the point that in proper English “deduct” doesn’t simply apply to math but also theology. Languages evolve and take on different nuances. Induction is another conversation. ↩︎
The Hebraic Roots Bible’s footnote on Gen 3:1 states (bold is mine): “The word for ‘naked’ in verse 25 [of chapter 1] and the word for ‘cunning’ are derived from the same root word in Hebrew.” ↩︎
Edward L. Greenstein (2019). Job: A New Translation. Yale University Press. p. xxvii. ISBN9780300163766. Determining the time and place of the book’s composition is bound up with the nature of the book’s language. The Hebrew prose of the frame tale, notwithstanding many classic features, shows that it was composed in the post-Babylonian era (after 540 BC). The poetic core of the book is written in a highly literate and literary Hebrew, the eccentricities and occasional clumsiness of which suggest that Hebrew was a learned and not native language of the poet. The numerous words and grammatical shadings of Aramaic spread throughout the mainly Hebrew text of Job make a setting in the Persian era (approximately 540-330) fairly certain, for it was only in that period that Aramaic became a major language throughout the Levant. The poet depends on an audience that will pick up on subtle signs of Aramaic.↩︎
The following is a (summarized) transcript from a renewal weekend retreat victory meeting (Secuela) a few weeks following the retreat. This retreat was a TRES DIAS weekend, but there are many renewal type weekends and if you have the opportunity to attend one you should!
4th day YES!!! Today we reflect back to the victory of the three-day weekend. Perhaps the most prolific mountain top experience you have ever had. I bet some of you have come down from that mountain though. Anyone actually hit the dirt yet? That happens. Luckily, we have a brotherhood and sisterhood now to help pick you up. On the weekend I shared from Psalm 22. Psalter is divided into five books (Psalms 1-41; 42-72; 73-89; 90-106; 107-150). Book one is significant in several ways. Book I of the Psalms corresponds to the Song of Songs which was sung at the Passover season. The whole of the 41 psalms (1 of Introduction plus 40) relate to this theme. Note, as an example, Psalm 22 which says that the wicked “pierced my hands and my feet” (verse 16). This reference, in prophecy, referred to the crucifixion of Christ – who died at the Passover! Also, since Israel came out of Egypt at Passover, the 40 psalms of Book I (after the introductory one) probably denote the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. The 30 psalms of Book II (after the introductory one) may show the 30 years for the establishing of the nation of Israel in the land of Canaan – and this took exactly 30 years from their crossing of the River Jordan to the death of Joshua. If you really dive in, after a careful analysis you will find a multi-layered, subtle, and profoundly meaningful structure and arrangement of the entire book. This arrangement is apparent in all five Books of Psalms, but it is particularly striking in Book I, Psalms 1-41. Keys to understanding the arrangement of the psalms are the awareness of chiasms, the linking together of psalms with common themes, words, and thought development, and the use of symbolic numbers. One of my favorite features of Hebrew poetry is the chiasm.
I wanted to show you how Psalms 15-24 are connected. I shared Psalms 15-24 today because they were meant to be read together in complete context and it is about our VICTORY! Together with Psalms 20 (a prayer for the king to be victorious) and 21 (a response from the king praising God for victories granted), these three royal psalms frame Psalm 19, the central psalm of the second chiasm. Like the first hymn of the Psalter (Psalm 8), this second hymn (Psalm 19) speaks of YHWH’s glory in creation and man’s responsibility to live in a covenant relationship with him. The psalm expands on the meditation of the Torah first introduced in Psalm 1:2-3, and it provides a glimpse of what is to come in the magnificent Torah psalm, Psalm 119. It is so beautiful!
Different people interpret Psalm 22 differently. But at ALTD we rejoice in what we have in common, not what we might see differently and regardless of your denomination or theological leaning we can all agree on Psalm 22 pointing to Jesus (Luke tells us that the risen Lord interpreted the Psalms to His disciples as referring prophetically to Himself in Luke 24:44) and revealing victory.
Of the thirteen (some count seventeen) major Old Testament texts that are quoted in the Gospel narratives, nine come from the Psalms, and five of those from Psalm 22. The best known of them all is the cry of dereliction, “Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani” -My God My God Why have you forsaken me- (Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34).’ I talked about that on the women’s Tres Dias 50 weekend a bit but I will expound for those that were not there!
The Psalm has two strongly contrasting divisions: vv1-18 – a song of lament, speaking of the psalmist’s suffering, vv19-31 – a song of praise, speaking of the psalmist’s vindication. We could characterize it as, “From trauma to triumph.”
When you see that Christ shared this section of Psalms 22 with his disciples and identified himself prophetically, you understand that when he says, My God my God why have you forsaken me,” He was actually quoting the song of victory! Anyone that understood anything about Hebrew at the place of the crucifixion would have understood the quote then as not saying that God was forsaking Him but quite the opposite. Even though it may have looked to some or felt like that, Jesus was reminding them of the victory that was happening. This was a regularly sung song. I would contend that even those that weren’t of Israel would have known it much the way our world is aware of the hymn “Amazing Grace.”
When we use the words forsaken what do they mean? They refer to turning your face or back on someone. We here this in our language today when we say to someone, “don’t you turn your back on me,” or “don’t you walk away from me.” To turn away meant that you were no longer with them. It is the first step to leaving someone. The Bible calls this forsaking. Now, I have to go back to where I started. Some theologies do see God turning His face on Jesus but when you really follow their reasoning or understanding of the text here, I might reason that a lot of the differences might be simply definitions and semantics. I actually think we all (nearly) agree with what took place. We just frame it slightly differently as it is going to support different theologies. Free Will theology (for lack of better terminology) doesn’t have God turning His back on Jesus as that would be majorly problematic to God’s statement of promise and his character itself. However, a reformed theology is going to position him for a moment turning his back on Jesus to line up better with substitutional theology. (Did he “slightly” turn His back as He seems to have done with Israel? – I think that is the best framework for seeing it that way.) Every theology has to make a deduction here to line up with the rest of their atonement theory. I will still content that both views can be “close.” There are also some extreme views here such as viewing God as a cosmic child abuser that I won’t get into here.)
Yet God tells us more than 30 times in the Bible as His enduring covenant promise (many people will call an unconditional covenant) that God will never leave or forsake us. So theologically now it seems like we have a contradiction in scripture. Whenever it appears like scripture is in contradiction, we have to ask what is going on and look deeper into the text. We know that scripture doesn’t contradict itself so how do we theologically reconcile this? I think the answer is quite simple actually.
I can’t speak for how the reformed circles answer this (more than I briefly have), but I will speak to why I lean towards simply saying God never turned His back on Jesus. If you say God did turn His back on Jesus and connect it to Ransom and PSA versions of atonement, you’re going to have a lot of theological gymnastics needed. (But I will admit there is a framework for that view.) Most theologians I know are going to take the far more simple and defendable view that God didn’t turn His back on Jesus (but that is also going to create a problem if you hold to PSA and Ransom theories.) In quoting Psalm 22 Jesus is reminding all of the faithful that God actually ISN’T turning his back or his face on Jesus. That God is with him in the healing moment and reconciling the world in what looks like defeat but is actually the biggest victory the world will ever know. That is exactly the context of Psalm 22. This is important because the promise is likely the most thematic promise of the entire scripture -that God will never leave us or forsake us. By taking this view, I don’t have to then try to explain how God would say this and then seemingly turn away from Jesus at the cross. My theology overwhelmingly would state that He didn’t do that to Jesus and He won’t ever leave you despite what you do. (I would also argue he never turns His back on Israel which is in part what Jesus was clarifying in the parable.) In fact I would claim that is the continued message (and even central theme) of the Old Covenant and the New. It is the prodigal story; God is always arms open to you and there is victory. These truths are fundamental to the TRES DIAS journey as well as to our deepened trust in the LORD unto the rest of our calling.
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families of the nations shall worship before You. Psalm 22:28
Turn – the Hebrew word here is shuv. It is used more than 1000 times in Hebrew Scripture and carries a couple dozen different ideas or meanings but all of them have an idea of “coming back.” Now if I asked you what the gospel is. The answers would greatly vary which I always think is interesting. (your answers are based on how Jesus has personally revealed Himself to you.) You might say, freedom, or the good news, the covenant story, or something similar. These are all true! (Chapter 7 of This is the Way of Covenant Discipleship gets really into this.) My point is no one would use the word SHUV!!! All of these other words are nouns and the Hebrew word SHUV is about different because it is a verb. I like the word SHUV for this reason, living out the gospel should look like a verb in your life. There should be 1000 different ways that you live out the revelation of Jesus!
“Christians typically focus the attention of “conversion” on the future. Usually this involves concern about where you will go when you die. Getting to heaven is, too often, the goal of religious experience. Ultimately, this preoccupation with what happens after death is based in a Greek philosophical belief that the world is a bad and terrible place and the only real solution to problems here on earth is escape. Heaven will solve it all. If Jesus just comes back soon, our problems will be over.”1 This is called escapism and has led many people into poor theology.
I always think is interesting that in the Old Testament they had no revelation of any other further life. Other than God Himself, the concept of eternal life in the Bible is revealed in the New Covenant in Jesus. Yet in the Old Testament they possibly lived far greater lives of devotion than most of us do today. This Hebrew word SHUV reminds us that the object of return to God’s ways. A return to a life of devotion, piety study and action – a return to Eden type of communion, walking with God. This kind of life takes action here and now and it is not an escape plan.
I want to show you one more thing in the text. Hebrew reads a bit different than English. Often the first word is the main emphasis of the structure. So here the verb comes first! Literally, the verse reads, “Remember and return to YHWH all the ends of the earth.” The action is at the forefront. What do we need for this kind of action? Well, it tells us that to! Despite what things sometimes look like, remember who is in control, remember who will bring the victory. Remember the and live that out (as a note some scholars would interpret the Hebrew to not make the statement that all will actually return, but all are offered to return.) When we do that, it means that we run back into his arms. That we live out goodness, peace, edification of the body of Christ. We demonstrate compassion and image grace. We find ourselves with the father again on those walks in the cool of the evening when there was nothing to hide. We live transparently in the body of Christ through His amazing grace. In Philippians 2:5-8, believers are encouraged to adopt the “mind of Christ,” which embodies humility, obedience, and selflessness demonstrated in Him aligning our thoughts and decisions with Jesus’ way of thinking, promoting love, humility, and wisdom.
TODAY IS THE DAY OF VICTORY!!! There will be days that don’t feel victorious. We are actually PROMISED THAT! In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” James 1 actually says to “Consider it all joy, my brothers and sisters, when you encounter various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4 And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
COMMUNION: The table should be a reminder of many things in your life. We are welcomed to regularly come to the table and remember the full picture (1000x) of what Jesus revealed to us. One of the pictures is victory. I invite you today to the table of victory. The bread that is broken, the cup offered to you as a sign to remember who you are. Your identity in Jesus. The rest of the world can fade away, but that that victory is part of you. It is literally what creates and embodies you. Remember and lay claim this day and every day.
This year at our Friday May 2 6pm outdoor Season kickoff. TOV will be commissioning Paul Lazzaroni in his gifting as a shepherd (pastor). We will start at 6pm with praise and worship and transition into a teaching and commissioning service. Towards the end of the night, we will call Paul and His wife Megg up and commission them. Paul is completing his BA in Biblical Studies from Covenant Theological Seminary (CTS) and will be installed as a TOV associate pastor. Tov also affirms women in Ministry and that the two have become one and therefore will be recognizing Paul and Megg together. Upon completion of His BA in Biblical Studies at CTS Paul will be enrolled in The King’s Commission School of Divinity in their Master of Divinity program. Friday night he will be presented with a certificate of ordination from TKC and the International Association of Theological schools (IATS). If you have walked closely with Paul, I want to personally thank you for the investment you have made and the fruit that it has and will continue to bear in our TOV community.
TOV believes in the priesthood of all believers. That means that from the opening pages of the Bible we believe that our vocational identity was to live out our giftedness as an ambassador that represents Jesus and His Kingdom. We believe that every believer is called this way and that it is a process within sanctification. However, some are recognized by the body as leaders that shepherd the shepherds.
Pastor – Shepherding those who shepherd
In this sense, we are recognizing Paul’s gifting. As TOV is not into titles, we view a commissioning of one’s life in relation to the recognition of the community and the fruit they bear. This is a functional calling based on unique gifting, spiritual maturity, and sacrificial service. We are setting apart Paul as one who has made the decision to live set apart and wholly devoted to shepherding others out of meekness and sacrificial love. To some regard TOV is hesitant to use the term “pastor” as it isn’t in the Bible. (The Greek in Eph 4 uses the term poimenas which is better translated shepherd.) Therefore, the term is a bit of a theological construct of humanity. We also believe everyone in some way functions ministerially. So, the term also becomes problematic in that sense. However, we do recognize in a modern definition of the word as someone who is identified as a central leader of the body of Christ. In that sense both Paul, myself, and my wife Krista are identified as those that are recognized and functioning as TOV shepherds who shepherd.
In a sense we recognize every believer this way, but in another sense, we see the Biblical example of those that lead the shepherding, and the world refers to these people as pastors. So, will you call him Pastor Paul from here on out? Well, I guess I will leave that up to you. I think He would prefer you just call him Paul. At the same time, it makes complete sense that nearly every other church uses the title pastor before someone’s first or last name. We certainly are not saying it is wrong or that churches shouldn’t do that. The roots of TOV are to return to a first century style church and they didn’t seem to call anyone pastor back then, so out of consistency, that is more of our reasoning. We also like to think this roles self sacrificially with the New Testament descriptions such as a gardener, one who cultivates growth.
1 Corinthians 4:1-2
“This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed. Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.”
Today’s leadership structures in the church are based on a contemporary hierarchical and positional mindset. According to the positional mindset terms and titles like pastor, elder, bishop, deacon, the 5-fold ministry positions/offices, etc. are positions of church leadership or “ecclesial offices”.
By contrast we would believe that the New Testament vision is that of a functional mindset. Each of these “offices” in the positional view are actually giftings and not a position. Leadership in the New Testament places a high premium on the unique gifting, spiritual maturity, and sacrificial service of each member. It lays stress on functions, not offices. It emphasizes tasks rather than titles. Its main concern lies in activities like pastor-ing, elder-ing, prophesy-ing, oversee-ing, apostle-ing, etc. Positional thinking is hung up on nouns, while functional thinking stresses verbs.
Jesus was pretty clear on hierarchy in Matt 20:25-28 in that it should “not be so among you” and led by example from an upside-down kingdom perspective of complete self-sacrificial servanthood exhibiting power under rather than a power over.
Jesus on hierarchy:
Worldly leadership operates on the top-down command structures. The Kingdom of God operates on leadership that is not positional and that flows out of meekness and sacrificial love.
Worldly leadership is based on rank. The Kingdom of God operates based on Godly character.. Christ’s description of a “leader”- “let him be a servant”
Worldly leadership is measured by greatness and prominence. In the Kingdom greatness is measured by humility and servanthood.
Worldly leadership use their positions to rule over others. In the Kingdom of God leaders deplore special reverence “to regard themselves as the younger” (As the one with least power) or power under.
In Matthew 23:8-12 Jesus comes against the titles of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law- positional authority
In the Religious climate of the Jews a class system existed made up of religious specialists and non-specialists (clergy and laity?). Yet in the Kingdom all are brothers and sisters in the same family.
In the Religious world leaders are recognized with honorific titles (Pastor, Elder, bishop, minister, director, etc.). In the Kingdom there are no distinctions or titles- we are all a kingdom of priests unto our God.
Religious leaders lead through outward prominence and display. In the Kingdom we wash feet as humble lowly servants.
Religious leadership was rooted in status, title, and position. In the Kingdom everything is rooted in inward life and character.
Jesus comes against both the worldly view of hierarchical power and the religious view of positional authority. Why? Because they stunt the organic nature of his body. They impede the functioning of the gifts when just the “professionals” do all the “kingdom work”. And they create a 2-class system in the church.
Submission
We hear a lot about submission to authority in the church but in reality we have “no king but Christ” and the key verse in the New Testament for submission says:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph 5:21)
Submit= hypotasso= voluntarily yield
Jesus is your only spiritual covering- there is not case in the Bible for any man or religious leader to be so.
The view of oversight in the NT church is about the whole body operating in their giftings and being discipled by those who are wise, mature, and have the character of Christ in them. This is what leadership and oversight looks like rather than the CEO structure that focuses on offices and hierarchy which hurts the church.
We need all the gifts to be a healthy body.
Apostolic work sets the culture and plants, waters, and weeds in the community. They are often itinerant workers plowing new roads for the kingdom.
Prophets are covenant enforcers exhorting the body to stay on course and listen to the Lord for his vision.
Evangelists embody the gospel message and share it boldly through invitation, which results in a growing community pursing discipleship.
We talked about hospitality as the primary method of early church discipleship
Shepherds/Teachers help the church in times of personal crisis (shepherding) and cultivate the church’s spiritual life by revealing Christ through the exposition of Scripture (teaching).
We noted that shepherd-teacher are combined here (4 fold?). This is also the only mention of “pastor” in the Bible and it’s better as shepherd and it’s plural. In 1 Peter it is a verb and here it’s a noun acting as a verb (function not position)
Also when someone says there are no women pastors in the Bible you can also say there are no male pastors in the Bible. Shepherding is biblical but it’s not a position.
Ephesians 4 describes these as “ascension gifts” not “ascension offices”
Does Romans 12 list a 7 fold ministry? Does 1 Cor 12 list an 8 fold ministry? No! Hardly anyone takes there lists hieratically so why Eph 4? We may have up 22+ gifts listed in the Bible but there are more.
How do we get to a better place?
Every day is completely, wholly given to Jesus and the calling to be a disciple and make a disciple by Jesus’ definition not the worlds
You don’t give your time, treasure, and talents to the world in any way, they are reserved solely for Jesus
You train up your kids as your primary responsibility and your core act of making disciples
You live intimately with Him and present deeper devotion to the king and His kingdom within your family and surround yourself with one accord of a body of believers that think the same way.
Don’t be immersed in the world, let the world find Jesus through you. Offer living water at each and every opportunity. You don’t need to drink the worlds water anymore.
Bring your gifts to and for the body each and every day
Meet regularly as a spiritual family communing with Jesus as a central strand of life together
Your best should be given to Jesus, everything points that way
Work repeatedly and regularly to present yourself completely devoted to Him (a living sacrifice) and your spiritual family of disciples.
Get back to God’s ideals, perhaps 7 feasts for 7 days and each sabbath together; or perhaps that was just the beginning of what God wants. Eventually in a recreated heaven and earth we are going to be in fellowship not just 7×7 but completely. That should be the goal today too, not once a week, but wholly given in complete life pursuit. That is the thrust of the New Covenant disciple, not just a tithe, or a first fruit, but all in all the time.
What would it look like if your spiritual family lived this way. Can you imagine it? Could you survive in America? What if you had 10 families that made this commitment. Your gifts enabled housing out of debt. (pipedream, impossible? I think your limiting yourself and God) You shared what was “needed”; you provided for not only your own but the others. You all learned to live this way. I would actually venture to say that it is not only possible but is the ONLY Biblical model and is a recipe for amazing life in Jesus. You might conduct a business but it is surrounded together in Jesus. Maybe the Amish building houses together weren’t too far off from a New Testament picture of working together, they just got hung up on legalism along the way.
In short, whenever the church gathers together, its guiding and functioning principal is simply to incarnate Christ (1 Cor 12:12)
The Edenic Ideal:
We always take everything back to God’s ideals. The Bible begins and ends with Eden. New Creation has broken into the present through the resurrection, so the church should be living according to God’s ideals in our communities even if the world looks completely opposite.
God’s eternal purpose was to have a people in relationship with him working in equality under God’s kingship. This is God’s ideal for his church too. Each of us bringing our gifts to the altar/table and using them to image him to creation.
EXPEDITION 44 