No King But Christ.

Over the last few years, I have become increasingly less confident in America (and most non third world countries) as any kind of formidable place for God to co-exist. Many want to “bring back” the notion of God into our country and schools but it is no secret that we (those that hold to a no king but Christ perspective) don’t ever see that America was “God’s country” or having been founded with the notion that it might become that. It was simply founded as a free country and for that I am grateful; but it isn’t Israel, nor should it be viewed as an entity of Christ’s kingdom. My only reservation in this way of thinking is to the notion that I believe all things are being and going to be either reclaimed to this kingdom or simply annihilated (which by biblical definition means to mercifully put to a final rest.) make no mistake, the people in this “foreign” kingdom and all the others should be redeemed to Christ within “HIS KINGDOM,” but the nation itself is a “rival” to the Kingdom of God.

The US switched from a “Heil Hitler” style Bellamy salute and Congress amended this “code” on December 22, 1942, when it passed Public Law 77-829, stating among other changes, that the pledge “be rendered by standing with the right hand over the heart.”^[2]

As you can see, I carefully alluded to above, our flag salute was borrowed from Rome. It is exactly what the Bible was referring to as not taking two masters. In other words, this isn’t a maybe or might have been, our salute comes precisely from Rome and is EXACTLY what the Bible is talking about when it is challenging us to be “ALL IN” in our devout allegiance to Christ and not the systems and kingdoms of this world.

“Our identity is SOLELY with the King of the universe, not with any country or nationality or political party. When we are re-born into this new life, we are transferred into a new kingdom with a new citizenship.”

Dr. Will Ryan – This is the Way part III (2023)

The elephant in the room in this conversation is Paul’s citizenship. Not everyone in the ancient world had citizenship. It could be acquired through purchase or through birth. We need to ask what Paul made of it and how he viewed it because it is important to this conversation. Paul’s citizenship comes up in 3 instances in Acts: Acts 16:37-38, 22:25-28, and Acts 25. 

In Acts 16 Paul has been beaten and imprisoned and when it looks like something worse may be happening he pulls his Roman citizen card to escape. The privileges enjoyed by full citizens were wide-ranging: They could vote in assemblies and elections; own property; get married legally; have their children inherit property; stand for election and access public office; participate in priesthoods; and enlist in the legion, on top of that, according to Julian Law, a citizen could not be beaten without a trial. Why didn’t Paul pull the citizen card to avoid being beaten by the crowd earlier? The text shows the jailer’s family coming to Jesus, Paul seemed to elevate Kingdom priorities over citizenship and “rights”. It almost seemed like he didn’t want to mention it except to use it to continue his mission from Jesus. 

In Acts 22 we see Paul pull the citizen card to avoid being beaten and we find out this was something Paul was born into not something he acquired or purchased.  Paul seemed to use his citizenship to avoid beatings and being killed but he never seemed to use it to lift up allegiance to the empire. Previously in Acts 17 we see Paul in Thessalonica and a riot breaks out for proclaiming Jesus is king (and Caesar is not). The mob is angry because “these men who have turned the world upside down, have come here also,… they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus “ (Acts 17:6b-7). When Paul writes to the Philippians he says they are “citizens of heaven”. This would be shocking to a Roman colony (Where many would have been granted citizenship as a Roman colony versus a Roman territory). Paul is undermining their Roman citizenship and saying that their true citizenship was elsewhere. The Church is a colony of heavenly citizens and not Roman citizens. In the time of Rome, you would have been considered to have renounce your pledge to Rome if you desired to make an obedient pledge of faith to Jesus. Although, it seems the thorn in Paul’s flesh was likely a person, it could have been his personal inability to give up his Roman citizenship seemingly coming off as double mindedness or even as hypocritical when compared to His teaching of obedience solely to Christ. Some also frame this issue as if he is not able to rid himself of it due his the role as a Jewish Shliach prior to his transformation.

In Acts 25 we see Paul using his Roman citizenship to appeal to Caesar. But this is weird because not all citizens could appeal to Caesar, but Paul as a Jewish Shliach (undercover cop before his transformation on the Damascus road) likely could. Again Paul uses his citizenship to undermine the empire and get an audience with Caesar. At the end of Acts 28 Paul is under house arrest and preaching the gospel of the Kingdom unhindered. Did you get that? Paul used his citizenship to usurp the Empire right under Caesar’s nose with the gospel of the kingdom. Paul never used his citizenship to further the Roman’s agenda but the Kingdom of God’s. Paul was still beaten and faced many hardships for the kingdom and didn’t seem to pull the citizen card as often as we might think (see 2 Cor 11- much of this would not have happened if the citizen card was pulled). 

Jesus Christ, therefore, is our absolute Lord, KING OF KINGS. We swear absolute allegiance to him and to no one and nothing else. All other commitments must be within that relationship, or they are opposed it. Jesus was clear that we shouldn’t be making oaths to the world.

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’  But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:33-37)

Many Christians take this part of the Sermon on the mount to simply be about telling the truth. At surface level this is true, we are to be a people above reproach and full of integrity, but at a deeper level oaths get to the issue of allegiance. To take an oath is “a solemn promise”, likewise to make a pledge is “a solemn promise or oath of loyalty”. When we pledge allegiance or make and oath we are promising by an object (i.e flag) our loyalty to something (the Republic- our nation).

Jesus condemned taking an oath/pledge/promise using an object such as heaven (God’s location), God’s footstool (the temple), God’s City (Jerusalem as the seat of the Nation), or even by your head (God’s image) to make a promise or oath to something by your word. This is being connected to breaking covenant with God. This is why, right before this section on the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus talks about divorce- the breaking of covenant. He’s playing off this picture when it comes to oath taking, saying that it is adultery and a rejection of the commandments to have no gods before Him (or literally in His face) and idols (thing representing the rule or location of a god), and this is part of bearing God’s name in vain.  Deuteronomy 6:13 say that we should swear by Him alone- this is a connection to our covenant with God and nothing else. 

This section of the sermon on the mount, that many look at as the antithesis’ of the Law, are all about how to bear and represent God’s name. It is the fulfillment of the 1st and 2nd commandment: to have only one God (Yahweh) and to not make idols, and to not bear/use (carry) his name in vain. Our loyalty is to Yahweh alone.  The Prophets spoke of oaths in this way, 

Though you are a whore, Israel, let not Judah become guilty.  Do not come up to Gilgal, nor go up to Beyth Awen, nor swear an oath, saying, ‘As YHWH lives!’” Hosea 4:15

Reading the words of YHWH in the mouth of Hosea is shocking, to say the least.  Israel is a whore?! “Do not come up to Gilgal, nor go up to Beyth Awen, nor swear an oath”, this oath is also connected to making an oath to a location (like to America).  “As YHWH lives.”  It’s the equivalent of our modern “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”  Hosea’s prophetic judgment is this:  if the one who proclaims such an oath does not live according to God’s instructions, the oath is worthless!  

Calling on the name of the Lord to vouch for our testimony means absolutely nothing unless our actions are aligned with His instructions. Once more we see that saying something has little consequence unless it is backed with doing something. How many times have we sworn an oath that doesn’t match our behavior?  “Until death do us part.”  What does such a promise mean when half of the time it is broken?  

Likewise Amos 8:14 says, “As for those who swear by the guilt of Samaria, Who say, ‘As your god lives, O Dan,’ And, ‘As the way of Beersheba lives,’ They will fall and not rise again.”

Amos is speaking to God’s people and telling them that swearing by a nation who is separate from God results in destruction. Again, Amos links oaths and actions connected to God’s covenant. What about those who swear/pledge by America (and her guilt), what awaits them? This is why John says to the churches of Asia Minor in Revelation, who were entangled with Rome (Babylon), to “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues” (Rev 18:4).

Blasphemy is not cursing.  It is using God’s name to vouch for something that isn’t true no matter what the subject or the circumstances.  “Let your ‘Yes’ be “Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No,’” said our Messiah.  Jesus knew why, do we? Lying, bending the truth, and making false oaths of allegiance is breaking a covenant with God.  Lying is spoken adultery.  

When we say “one nation under God”, are we telling the truth? By the way, this line was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1954 and “In God we trust” was legislated to be added onto our money in 1955. Are we lying when making an oath to a nation and declaring that it is under God or is in a special covenant with God (despite what Kirk Cameron says)? The Kingdom of God is the only kingdom of God. The New Testament continually says that the Principalities and Powers control the nations and Satan is the “Ruler of this World” and the “Prince of the power of the Air (another way to say this world)”. Jesus was offered all the nations of the World if he would worship (pledge?) the Devil and Jesus doesn’t deny the Devil owned them. Yet, he refused to and said we should “worship the Lord and serve Him [God] only”. This should cause us to pause and think.

Oaths are loyal proclamations to keep your promise. As a Christian, when you pledge to America are you making a promise of allegiance that goes against your baptismal pledge to the Kingdom of God? When Paul says don’t be unequally yoked this implies something about partnerships and oaths or covenant agreement with the world. In an ancient biblical context an oath meant to mix blood with someone and literally a covenant was cut. Israel made covenants with the world and eventually was handed over to exile because of they put other Gods before Yahweh continually. The law commanded to “fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made”. Jesus, sets the record straight as we notice that he does not say, ” Do not swear an oath and then break it.” No, he says: “Do not swear an oath AT ALL”!!!

This is why the Early Church, prior to Constantine and the entanglement of Christianity with the State, held a firm stance against oaths/pledges and flags. Tertullian (160-220 AD) summarized the thoughts of the early church saying this, “Shall we carry a flag? [NO] It is rival to Christ.” 

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” (Matthew 6:24)

If you are giving your allegiance to your country or anyone else, you are slapping Jesus in the face.

Whether the choice is between God and money, God and man, God and a government or nation, the choice is always the same, one or the other. Jesus also said ” My kingdom is not of this world”. Jesus has a kingdom, and I can’t be loyal to two kingdoms at once. It would be impossible to be loyal to the USA and NAZI GERMANY during WWII at the same time! It’s the same with being part of the kingdom of God. Jesus calls us to be loyal to his kingdom, and if we have given our loyalty to God’s kingdom, how then can we try and give it to America or any other worldly kingdom? (This is a modified quote from Matt Young)

Some would say that in the same way we can have a covenant under God and a covenant relationship with our wives we can have a covenant relationship with God and our country. The problem is that marriage is a Biblical covenant imitated under the covenant of God. It is part of that Kingdom and should rightly align with all of the pledges and ideals of that covenant. You can’t simply bring in another covenant of oaths and allegiance under God’s covenant that is un-arguably ANTI-GOD or what His covenant is about. That is the definition of idolatry. It is taught from Old to New Testaments throughout the pages of the Bible as CONTRARY to what God wants and Jesus so clearly re-affirms.

How is it that Christians have become so blinded to this? How have we let the idea of Nationalism slip in and defile this covenant? I don’t think Jesus is smiling when you raise a hand in the air or over your heart to pledge your allegiance to anyone or anything other than him; especially when the entity you are embracing is so unabashedly “RIVAL” or against Him and His kingdom.

1. Winkler, Martin M. (2009). The Roman Salute: Cinema, History, Ideology. Ohio State University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8142-0864-9.
2.  Ellis, Richard (2005). To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance (illustrated ed.). University Press of Kansas. pp. 116–118.

Today many people (Christian and non) understand the adversary of God to be Satan. In our modern culture we sometimes even view this cosmic bad guy to be an equal opponent to God in terms of power and dominion. It might Suprise you to know that the Old Testament didn’t (& doesn’t) read this way. In fact, if I handed you a Bible and you were able to read the Old Testament in ITS original language (Hebrew) you would be hard pressed to find “SATAN” as a singular or personal proper name being anywhere in the pages. However, in the New Testament, we get a clear picture of Satan being the leader of the fallen spirits and therefore have a tendency to read that concept back into the Old Testament. As Jesus and the New Testament often gives clarification or fulfillment to many aspects of the Old Testament, most readers are hermeneutically guilty of reading too much into the older text. It is important to first understand how the original audience understood the word given before applying any kind of later revelation or further meaning to a text. This is called a texts primary meaning.

In Hebrew, the specific noun and verb שׂטן (satan) usually take on an English translation of an accuser or adversary. Today in English, we sometimes use the word “satan” similarly when we say, “get behind me satan.” But in the New Testament the same term more often than not, referred to a specific person that is referred to by the proper name of “Satan.” Here is a basic example of the term “satan” used as the term for accuser. In Zechariah, “Joshua the high priest was standing before the angel of the Lord, and the satan [הַשָּׂטָן] was standing inat his right hand to accuse [שׂטן] him” (3:1). So essentially, the accuser was there to accuse him. In Hebrew this is exactly how it reads, but in English the interpreters have changed it likely to better fit with a New Testament view or perhaps even an interpretational bias for some reason or another. This is actually quite common and why I think every committed believer should have some understanding of the original Biblical languages and at least understand how to use an interlinear. Can you imagine being married to someone and not caring to understand any of their original language.

before we got too far into this conversation let’s also dispel a common notion. Some want to think of Satan as an “office” in the same way they talk about an Elder being an office position. Let’s just expel those notions. The Bible doesn’t clearly say there are any “offices” and we shouldn’t view these words that way. We don’t have a constitution or set of bylaws we are given with the Bible, and there aren’t offices, only a king of all and His name is clearly JESUS. X44 has done an entire episode on this. https://youtu.be/vLZhrZrL0Jk

Most English Bible translator’s pickup up on the “singular cosmic bad guy leader” to be represented at least in some way in the OT. That’s why every English translation (right or wrong) simply uses “Satan,” throughout the Old Testament such as in Job 1-2, Zechariah 3:1-2, and 1 Chronicles 21:1. It’s been the traditional understanding for many years that Satan was the leader of the fallen degenerate spirits even before the New Testament. But as a scholar, I would say that most translators have “back read” the singular cosmic bad guy into the story, having the New Testament at hand and likely taking more liberty as a translator than I would prefer. By that I mean, that in the above verses the Hebrew word would actually be better translated (as it is in some versions) as an accuser or challenger, and sometimes this even takes on a positive connotation which leaves some scratching their head. I have also written on this concept about being a positive challenger to your covenant community. I thought about naming that article “how to be a good Satan” but didn’t think that would go over well. You can read that here. https://expedition44.com/2022/05/31/be-a-challenger/

Would King David have had an understanding of a singular proper named entity of Satan? I doubt it.

Here’s why: In every case in Job and Zechariah, the Hebrew is “hassatan [הַשָּׂטָן],” that is, “the satan.” Translations do not reflect this well in English, they simply read “Satan,” as if it is a proper name when it isn’t written that way in Hebrew. On the other hand, there is a chance that this reference “could” be the singular person (ie SATAN) of the New Testament, the Hebrew text just doesn’t specifically say that in the way that you likely understand because of the English translation. In other words, we don’t have the hermeneutical merit to go one way or the other. It isn’t wrong to come to a conclusion, or have an opinion, but we don’t have concrete evidence to go either way.

In Job, the accuser or challenger (satan) appears among the divine council — although most assume this is the Satan figure of the New Testament; I would caution that way of thinking. The text is vague or ambiguous for many reasons, and we just don’t have all the cards. Is this a story that takes place before the fall? (Well, if you believe in a pre-Adamite race [and I do] -you can go this way, but you also don’t have to) does the accuser of Job become Satan? Maybe, or maybe not, we don’t need him to, but he might be. There is a link below to an x44 video on this as well.

Although scholarship is divided on the interpretation of who the satan is in specifically Job and Zechariah, (divine council good guy functioning like a district attorney in a court scene as one of the [fallen or unfallen] powers and principalities, or the singular bad guy etc… we don’t really know and again it doesn’t matter much imho. “WE DON’T HAVE THE ANSWER IN THE TEXT” – The best interpretation in my view is he may or may not be.

1 Chronicles 21:1 seems to be the ONLY verse in the Old Testamant that would clearly use the term “satan” as a proper name: “Satan [שָׂטָן]” and not “the satan” or Hebrew “hassatan [הַשָּׂטָן].” One of the basic laws of Hermeneutics is to not use any one singular occurrence of something to make a doctrine or concrete statement based solely on the one situation, although people do this all the time (it isn’t good theology.) There are many reasons for this hermeneutic. Without getting into too much of a conversation on inerrancy, there are too many possible variations that could’ve led to this one thing being slightly off. It may be a scribe error, or perhaps a more modern translation with second temple thinking of Satan read into it as being the most modern manuscript we have and likely being different than the original manuscripts. to name a couple options. I’m careful not to completely discount them, but I also don’t want to give them too much merit. But the singular text of I Chronicles 21:1 doesn’t answer the question in contention of whether the singular Satan is represented in the Old Testament based solely on this verse, but hermeneutically it may give you a hint as to the consideration of your view. You should be “influenced” by it or consider the notion even if it is a singular occurrence.

as I stated with David above, personally, I don’t think any of the pre 2nd temple period audience had a concept of a singular bad guy named Satan. The Old Testament nearly always READS MORE as a powers and principalities description of fallen degenerate spirits rather than a singular super bad guy.

By the intertestamental period writers started to think of a singular proper named leader of the degenerate spirits and recognized him based on the text of the Torah as simply “satan.” (That type of etymology is common in Hebrew, a name was given that described “what” it was.) During this period, we see many names being used to describe the cosmic leader of Evil in extra biblical source and influences from the heavily mythic Greek cultures with names emerging such as Belial, Mastema, Satanail, and the devil (interesting how this term is usually not capitalized), but the term Satan is the likely the most prevalent. Some of these writings such as the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Enoch, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jubilees, and the Dead Sea Scrolls all speak to the increased interest in the demonic realm. Jewish apocalyptic literature was common during the intertestamental period and often described stories within the realm of spiritual beings.

At this point in the article, I am sure you are wondering about the serpent in Genesis 3, and I held off on this conversation point because it ties into the 2nd temple period. The serpent in Genesis three might be the singular bad guy described in the New Testament. Whether it is or isn’t the case, we are likely reading a dual fall; or the story of the fall of humankind at the same time we are reading the story of the first fallen spiritual being that many propose ends up being the Satan of the New Testament. It does seem to be the story of the first fallen spiritual being as the tempting serpent appears to be sinning and likely would not have been allowed in the garden after he sins and is cast down. But these statements are scripturally informed hypotheses. We don’t get that for sure anywhere in the Biblical text to be clear. But by the intertestamental period many writers had made this deduction, that the serpent of Genesis 3 was the first of the fallen and the leader of the degenerate spirits. For example, in The Wisdom of Solomon 2:24, we read, “through the devil’s envy death entered the world,” which identifies Genesis 3 and also at several points connects the Devil with the proper name Satan.

There is also an argument that the New Testament authors assumed the same; in Revelation, we read, “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” (12:9). John says, “the devil has been sinning from the beginning” (I John 3:8), and that the “evil one” influenced Cain to murder Abel (3:12). Paul states, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” in a Genesis 3:15 connection. Getting back to our inerrancy inference, we do need to consider the personal beliefs or influences of the writers and possibly keep these separate from the doctrine of the scriptures, but again this is a whole other conversation, and one that is a heated debate.

It’s obvious that by the New Testament, there was an understanding, of a leader of the fallen evil forces, being recognized as the proper name, Satan (the person who tempted Christ in the wilderness.) Do we have the merit to backwards read this into the Old Testament? Personally, I would say no… but I would also say that he – the Satan figure (proper name) was there and possibly in the garden.

Can we assume or give Him (Satan) the credit for several of the evils of the Old Testament? Why would we?

It’s also worth noting that even in the New Testament, there is a powers and principalities feel, that they weren’t just concerned about a singular bad guy, they were concerned about all of the fallen oppressors, the entire realm of evil and the fallen world.

Personally, what I don’t have a lot of interpretation for, is when anyone wants to make the cosmic ruler of evil (Satan) out to be greater than God or Jesus or even equal as if he was or is a worthy opponent. I do believe we are in a spiritual battle, but our King has won this fight generations ago. The keys have been reclaimed, the fallen bound, and the trajectory is towards reclaiming joy within the kingdom we “live” and reign in here and now and eschatologically to come.

If you want to explore this topic more, here are some great videos to get you started.

This article also dives into the usage of the term Lucifer: https://expedition44.com/2024/09/04/the-ongoing-results-of-the-fall-of-the-spiritual-beings/

If you haven’t noticed I have a deep regard for the broken, hurt, poor, and broken of our world and my heart aches that they may be renewed in the Joy of Christ. I wish the modern church was moved with a deeper conviction (And I know that many local churches are); but unfortunately, our ungodly government usually does a better job caring for the poor and needy than the local church does. In the New Testament church, it would seem that nearly all the money given to the church was to go towards the poor, afflicted, needy, homeless, orphans, and widows and some redirected to the planting of new congregations by Apostles. Seems like the modern-day church is quite off, usually spending a large part of their budget on mortgages and salaries. Sometimes I feel like our modern church models enable us to make excuses to not give properly according to scripture, they aren’t modeling very well. But don’t let that be a crutch. Give with relentless compassion according to what you have been blessed with. I’m thankful for many of you that have continue to give in this way and for the churches that continue to be “ALL IN” by discipleship and supporting of the first church’s endeavors.

But I am poor and needy; may Adonai think of me. You are my helper and rescuer; my God, don’t delay! Psalm 40:18 CJB

You should read the chapter to get the context, but the author goes from singing praises one moment to the depths of despair the next moment. This is common is wisdom and apocalyptic literature. Sometimes this is the author stating his condition but then moving forward in faith and trust speaking life into and over the situation in the name of the Lord. There is alot of power in the Name. The popular song “SPEAK JESUS” echoes much of the same intentions.

The Hebrew phrase above for poor and needy is va-ani ani. (Notice the repetition, in Hebrew reiteration means listen or take special note of!) The first word is usually translated something like “I am” & the second word is “poor”, but in English we miss the context, without getting way into the Hebrew, it is “well or correctly” translated; however, it’s worth understanding that there’s a better word in modern English. It takes on the definition more of being oppressed or afflicted than economically strapped, some translations say poor and afflicted which give you this idea, but it typically carries a tone of chance rather than something an opponent has dealt. Sometimes it was thought that the “gods” brought the calamities of the world. Yahweh would say that was one thing that made him different than “their gods.” He was “good” or TOV in Hebrew. (This is one major problem I have with Calvinism; God is not the author of Evil and his character is only capable of goodness.)

Have you ever been so constrained that your financial climate was just a small portion of the detriment that you were in? In other words, this scripture using the word poor is not so much about the money, that’s may or may not be a part of it, (and particularly in our American mindset we want to think money would fix everything); but rather, it is a description of the pit of despair and destruction. Most of us in America have never truly experienced that feeling. Sometimes the condition has nothing to do with money. Some believe that if you have never been there, you have never truly experienced the redemption of the Love of Jesus.

As I write this my heart is burdened by the “affliction” of a family in my covenant community called Tres Dias. Their teenage son was in a car accident and died yesterday morning. Our Oldest Son Ty is almost the same age, and they had a lot in common, so this has hit home in many ways. This family may be financially well off, and some might even say very well off; but today, and likely for very many days to come, they are not well off. My heart is broken for them.

Even though this family is strong with the Lord (as was their son) and knows the Lord is Gracious and compassionate and longs for restoration and joy, they are still afflicted.

In thinking through their situation yesterday it occurred to me that people understand that this family can look forward eschatologically to the day they are reunited with their son, but they still hurt now and need more than ever the hands and feet of Jesus to permeate their life. We “get that” as Christians in this family’s situation but sometimes we forget this with the rest of the broken world.

The scriptures speak more to the “now” in terms of deliverance and need than they do the eschatological or future heaven which is the way most people want to make everything out to be.

The primary message of HOPE in the Bible is for consolation of Jesus through the church (body of believers) here and now –not in Heaven.

In other words, through the body of Christ there can be deliverance for the hurting & the broken right here through the hands and feet of Christ. Perhaps not full healing of their hurt and deliverance from their affliction; but perhaps enough to truly experience the joy of Jesus Here and now as a foreshadow of what is to come. The intention of the Scripture is that we might image Christ himself and that redemption will come partly on this earth here and now in terms of bringing resolution and light into the pains of the destitute.

How will you be part of their exodus out of the darkness if all you want is a way out for you and them (they will be renewed in heaven)? Are we not called to restore and renew (here and now)? What percentage of your time treasure and talents have been given to what Christ said, was one of the most important aspects of the kingdom? We talk all the time about being the hands and feet of Christ, but are you? Would He look at you in this area and say well done thy good and faithful servant? The church of Acts sold everything to give to those that were destitute. How are we doing today as the communal body of believers, the church?

Start today with a small step. You don’t have to know this family, you just have to know Jesus… or even just be a “good” person, which likely won’t get you into heaven, but it could bring you closer to Jesus (I am hopeful!); and I like those people too, sometimes more than the “Christian’s” I know!

Please join me in a prayer for my friends the Shermans who lost their son yesterday and my other friends the Vawters who are experiencing great affliction. If you want to give financially please contact me here.

A prayer of intercession for the afflicted speaking truth over and through using the Hebrew names of God by Dr. Will Ryan

Father God of the Beer-lahai-roi, may you see into the deepest places through your compassionate eyes and deepest love towards my brother and sister and their family. May El-Shaddai sustain the depths of the groaning of their hearts and may You wrap Your ever-loving arms around them in consolation. Everlasting Eternal El-Olam may your refuge and hands cover this family through and through and provide spiritual and physical provision that knows know limit of their yearnings. Oh, Yahweh Yireh we have no provision for such deep loss and hurt yet you have made your way clear to us that we will be renewed in your wings and our countenance will once again be made to be shone upon. Adonai Rapha we cry out to you and plead that you ease the hurt that cannot be bored. We lay our hands out and exclaim that your spirit fall down and rain over us into the chasms of our affliction. Nissi may we hold you high in our lowest hour and ask that we be transformed into towers of your great image in our darkest hour that all may hear and see testimony of. Qedosh Yisrael Tsuri, may you be our strength our rock our camp of solace that we might fall at your altar and exclaim Yahweh sali umesadati umepalti eLi suri eheseh as we call out day and night and ask that you will be glorified as our king, restorer, as our horn and shield the source of the only One that may give the consolation of life and eternal rest. Elyon your mercy and compassion is unmatched may it be so in my brother and sisters life. Your purpose and prayers are true and right and despite this world and the lack of our understanding, we know that your ways are love. Shammah you are here in our midst moving among us drying every tear and comforting every wayward thought. May you be the restorer of our soul and the presence of my devotion. Miqweh, you never let us down. You give us sustenance in our rocky places and provision even when we don’t know what we need. May you meet us in our expectation to find our hearts full of your almighty gracious unfailing hope. But you, O Lord, are a shield around me; may you be our glory, the one who holds our head high. You have promised your ever giving spirit to us. Atik Yomin-The Ancient of Days divine everlasting God who rules in sovereignty may your heart be moved, may your hand be forgiving, may your provision be as mighty as your very name over and into my covenant brothers family. may this battle be given over to you. Basileus Basileon LORD OF LORD KING OF KINGS, LORD OVER ALL may you meet us in this sorrow and may your name be made great because of your compassion for us into eternity and the heavens of your great kingdom reigning forever and ever. Amen

“Woman, what do I have to do with you?”  John 2:4

Men and Women are different. Hopefully you didn’t have to come to Mexico for a week to learn that! One of the most basic Bible words is Shalom which means to have peace that comes from relational balance. It is described as something that is innately in all of us through God but also often as a gifting endowed to us. It is the basic idea that peace and contentment is found only in our relationship with God at the center when we are in balance with him. Our goal is to be made complete in His likeness.

We should all strive for peace, harmony, and contentment (which means to be whole or perfectly complete) in Jesus and pray that we may also demonstrate this balance as a gift of the covenant kingdom to others. Did you ever notice that women seem to do this better than men? I know this is a very general statement and not true in every situation; but there are likely more examples of women attributed as gentle peacemakers in the Bible than men.

It seems that when situations arise, women do their best to calm the situation.  Men, on the other hand, seem to be more stern or think they need to be strong or in control. In some ways men are always preparing for battle. We were created differently. One way isn’t necessarily better; we are just different, and we might learn something from the other.

Notice that John shares this story in the second chapter of his gospel which means He is making a point that is foundational to the rest of His story, and I am afraid much of His point has gotten lost in translation. We simply know this story as Jesus’ first miracle but that isn’t the point of the passage. The first miracle in the gospel of John is about hope and peace. Jesus’ mother is trying to keep the peace.  Jesus attends a wedding where Mary is also there (but they took separate cars!)  It becomes obvious to her that the wedding party will soon run out of wine. She observes and wishes she was gifted to bring peace and reduce conflict. She doesn’t have the ability but wonders if someone else that she is in covenant relationship might be able to.

I am going to challenge you that you have likely misinterpreted this story based on your cultural conceptions. You think like a western 20^th century American, not like a first century Jew. We might think Jesus is insensitive, like a typical 20^th century male, or too busy to care. You might even think his response is cold. You will be surprised to find out that when he calls her “Woman” the Greek word He uses is gunai and it usually meant wife. Strange Jesus would use this with His mother? That is our cultural interpretation. We interpret Mary as nagging Jesus and in reply we interpret Jesus likely with a harsh tone back to His mother because that is how we act in our culture, but that isn’t what the original language of the text conveys. Without getting too far into Greek, the English translation is correct but it opens the door for a “tone” to the interpretation of an unfortunate western audience that is typically not very nice to each other and especially the way we sometimes treat our mothers and wives.

I can relate to this verse personally. I lost my father many years ago. I was very close to Him and so was my mother. My mom has never remarried and in many ways I not only function as her son but also must fill the shoes that my father left. In our culture this sounds strange, in Bible times, it didn’t. Mary is relying on the man of the house at the wedding – Jesus (Her husband Joseph had passed by this time.) She turns to Jesus as the one who is gifted to take care of things. Does Jesus respond with attitude towards here? We want to read this into the story with our 20^th century eyes as if Jesus is saying, “MOTHER PLEASE!” but in doing so we would be greatly mistaken.

When we look at the other times Jesus used this Greek word “woman” we learn something that may give us a better interpretation of the story. When Jesus is dying on the cross and asks John to care for Mary or when he speaks to Mary Magdalene at the tomb, He uses the exact same Greek word of intimate entreating tenderness. Rather than to interpret it cold or brashly like we do in English it reads more like a love language. In Greek, the phrase reads literally, “What to me and to you, woman?” I want you to particularly notice something that is lost in English, the solution involves both of them, its circular in Hebraic thought. – Me and You. What should “WE” do? But wasn’t it just Jesus that turned the water to wine? (Hold on I am not turning Mary into deity like the Catholics have done…)

By his expression “to me and to you” Jesus is inviting her into the solution.  He seeks her cooperation as she has sought a gift in Him that she isn’t capable of. In Hebrew thought it is completing the circle 9which what a wedding ring is representative of.) Therefore, two are better than one and a picture from the beginning of John’s gospel that says to each of us need Jesus in our covenant intimate circle of relationships (and actually all of our relationships.)

In other words, this isn’t 20th century Jesus, and He isn’t carrying a sword to the wedding or barking commands, Jesus is not playing the stern male that we want to read into this.  He is not correcting her or belittling her.  He acknowledges her concern with tenderness.  With tenderness, he honors her role in his life.

This week as a foundation I want you to ask the question, how can every experience be better together? How were we designed in a cord of three strands to function better than what we could by ourselves? What if you become conditioned that in every situation of life you ask a question that includes you and your spouse in the solution, a question that asks about your relationship to each other and Jesus before both of you decide what to do.

Jesus puts the same question before each of us and especially in our marriages.  Something may not even be our problem but perhaps a situation in life.  When we give these to Jesus and our spouse, the response shouldn’t be “What do you want me to do about it?”  but rather, “How does this thing bring us together?”  It’s about the willingness to enter into the circle of life together in the gifts that we have been given that complement each other. You will also start to find that as you approach life in this way, your gifts not only are strengthened, but by combining your gift set with your spouses, you will also create and find new gifts in the partnership that you couldn’t have had on your own. Have you experienced this in your marriage? Today I want you to discuss times that have emerged as giftings together. Jesus’ mother was perceptive and had the compassion to help, Jesus had the physical ability, together “they” made wine. What are you and your spouse together in Jesus capable of for the kingdom when you start thinking and acting this way, when you believe and speak life into each other?

Today Matt Mouzakis of x44 and I took a slight break from our HUGE series on the church to do a miniseries on the epistle of James. I love the writing of James for several reasons. It has an ancient book of Wisdom feel to it, is very Hebraic in thought, and speaks right to the heart of discipleship. If you know me at all you know that these three things are nearly a life mantra to me.

The beginning of James doesn’t identify the author as some NT writings did, it could be several people. There two apostles with the name James, one was the brother of John, son of Zebedee and the other was the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10). But the more likely candidate is the oldest half-brother of Jesus identified as James in Matthew 13:55 as Origen quotes around 200 A.D. It is interesting that as this letter has a bit of a historical Jewish flare because it was believed that James may have doubted Jesus as the Messiah until Jesus appeared to him after Christ rose (I Cor. 15:7.) He was present in Acts 1:14 and later became a leader in the Jerusalem church from 45-62 A.D. (when he was martyred) and is known in tradition for his prayer life and was said to have knees as calloused as camels. In Acts 21 we have Paul receiving advice from Him. He spent much of his life winning the Jews over to Christianity.

James reads like a piece of Jewish wisdom literature but is closely tied with the message of Jesus’ sermon on the mount with an eastern Hebraic mindset. Most scholars date James at 62 right before he would have been martyred. I would date it much earlier for several reasons, but my primary reason is that he seems to know Paul but pre-dates Paul’s leadership in many ways. I would agree with NT Wright on a much earlier date than his martyrdom. Consider the linking of “justification” to “works” as opposed to “faith alone” (James 2:24). Personally, I don’t think they conflict, but if these three aspects are in fact borrowed from Pauline letters, then James must be later than Romans and Galatians, for Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:16 are the key passages in which Paul asserts that one is justified by faith and apart from “works of the law,” which would be the statements James is opposing. I don’t think this is the best option.

James was aware of Paul, but likely was not immediately familiar with Paul’s specific ongoings. Galatians was written as early as 49 CE, and Romans was written during Paul’s final stay in Corinth around 56 CE—not enough time to have traveled from Corinth to Rome and become influential enough to make their way back to Palestine, where James would have been writing in the 50s, and certainly no later than 62 CE, when he was martyred. In my mind, it makes the most sense to stay early with the dating in terms of harmony of scripture. But I am also influenced to go this way for another reason.

Some have proposed that the anonymity of the first sentence in the Epistle shows that James was a very well-known super prominent leader of the Jerusalem church. I have heard “normal people – not scholars” say things like Acts 2:41 tells us that Peter’s Pentecost sermon resulted in approximately 3,000 souls getting saved and baptized. These new believers then “…continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” and then Acts 2:47 we read that new converts were added daily. Consequently, Acts 4:4 says that not long after Pentecost, “…the number of the men came to be about five thousand.” By this thinking, many would assume that Jerusalem was a “MEGACHURCH” by these estimations. The problem is we are thinking with Western minds. Most scholars will tell you that the Biblical example of the first church would be to send apostles out to grow new churches as quickly as the number hit 70. As Jerusalem was likely one of the largest congregations, I doubt it resembled a mega church meeting of today. It was far more similar to a seminary of today’s design where people traveled to study and then GO OUT and plant churches as apostles after their study.

The closest thing in America we have to a first century church is likely a small seminary that communes and learns with each other several hours a day and then after a few years sends the students out to replicate the model they learned under.

–This was called discipleship and it was why the church existed!

By this design we get James backwards in his intro. It isn’t a vague intro because everyone knew who he was as a megachurch hierarchical leader, but rather because he emptied himself of humility making the writing of that described as a slave (Doulos) rather than a king or CEO. In other words, he was saying follow me humbly as I follow Jesus. When we make James out to be a superhero pastor, we do the exact opposite of what he wanted adn personally promoted in this book. He understood his role as he describes himself as a bondservant in absolute obedience, absolute humility, absolute loyalty & All in discipleship!

This idea is also echoed in his mentioning of 12 tribes when only ten were scattered. It means that his understanding of the Diaspora was that ALL OF ISRAEL were to reclaim what was lost. This is metaphorical for Jews and Gentiles being regathered. At the end of Galatians, Paul sends his blessing to the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). Peter calls Jews and gentiles in 1 Peter Exiles. Paul calls Jews and Gentiles the one new man and inheritors of the promises (Eph 1 & 2).  This notion comes through Jesus being the fulfillment of Israel and the true Jew and all those on Him are considered to be Jews. 

James teaches from 2 main sources: The sermon on the mount/plain and the sage wisdom of Proverbs 1-9. James is rhetorical mix of Proverbs and the teachings of Jesus. James 2-5 has 12 teachings (possibly a word play on the 12 tribes and Diaspora) that fall under the 3 categories we just covered and call the church to wholehearted devotion to the way of Jesus. All James teachings are grounded in what he calls the law of liberty or the Royal law: Love God & Love your Neighbor (The summary of the Torah).

The Big Idea of James:

·      Be wholly devoted to God (not the World)

·      Speak in Love

·      Serve the poor

Today the body of Christ needs more than ever to heed the words of this amazing letter. To be completely devoted in faith and allegiance, speak love, and live in the humility of Christ.

It’s a New Year!!!! Today I played a game of scrabble with Kade and scored 585 points with three 7 letter plays, (probably my highest score ever) but the one thing I’ll remember was a 6 point play that stunted me (couldn’t make it 7) with the word “content”. It made me think about words and dual meanings as well as our American struggle with “content” and being content. I love word plays. Ironically, I have been considering a word play that Jesus used since church last night.

Being content is a tough proposition as an American Christian. At Mount Zion this weekend Pastor Dave preached on the rich young ruler and it’s interesting when Jesus quotes the commandments in Mark 10, he seems to sort of misquote them… he says “Do not defraud”, rather than “don’t covet”; scholars have been baffled on this for a long time, but my take on it is that Jesus goes on to shrewdly confront the rich young ruler on the covetousness of his heart as what makes him “fraudulent” as a follower of Christ. Consider the implications to the church today as we are supposed to be bearing His image but are considered fraudulent by Christ if we aren’t content in Him… (It also could regard Him as “God”, but that’s another subject.) In my opinion it’s a very intelligent play on words in Greek and still challenges our carnal hearts 2000 years later.

There’s a lot in the Bible that points to contentment (within the heart of discipleship) as being the main goal in Christ in terms of a communal kingdom perspective.

The sages would pray daily, “Lord, make my heart so malleable that I am ready and willing to accept whatever You provide for me.”

Consider 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,”

We need to learn contentment as a Christian virtue as the body of Christ regardless of what the world says. The Greek word used in Hebrews 13 for content is arkeo and means to be completely satisfied with the provision of God; in context this is directly at odds with the world.

In Hebraic thought life was about balance and each person affected the balance of the whole community. May I be restless to do His will – and to rest in Him. May I contribute to the balance of the kingdom. This is the sacred balance: that His purpose becomes my driving force and His character becomes my contentment. The entire message of Scripture can be read in these words: May I find rest in You, O Lord.

I would encourage you, as you make your New Year’s resolutions today that your sentiment might be that you find rest in the lord and in Him, you might be content as an intricate ingredient of the kingdom and the body of Christ.

Last Year I wrote the first book of a trilogy series called “this is the way” and chapter one starts out challenging the reader with why we as Christians continue to accept and go along with things related to Christ that we know aren’t true or might be misleading. I love Christmas because it points everyone towards Jesus, but I also get tired of the worldliness that is placed on “their” version of the celebration and how far it has strayed from the story of the Messiah’s coming that was presented to us in scripture. I have written a lot on this and have a few videos (posted below), but here is some details of things I have alluded to surrounding the birth of Christ that you might enjoy, and I pray that it also deepens your appetite for intimacy with the Word.

Most devout Christians know the traditional story of Jesus born in a manger has issues. Every year when my church puts a manger out front with three wise men who likely weren’t three and didn’t show up until two years later, I have to question what we are doing as Christians who proclaim the “good news.” Doesn’t Good news imply truth? As I have mentioned before, Jesus likely wasn’t born in a mangy barn but rather the first floor “kitchen-garage” of relative’s home and today I will expound on that.

As with most New Testament stories we first have to start with the Old Testament to get the context right. In Gen 29:9 we learn that Rachel was a shepherdess, and the burial-place of Rachel is called the Tower of the Flock (Migdal Eder in Hebrew). Rachel died there while giving birth to a son, whom she named “Ben-Oni” which means “son of sorrow”, which may have foreshadowed the life that Mary would come to know as she would watch her blessed Son be crucified before her eyes. (I think we all understand the man of Sorrow personification.) In Genesis 35, after Rachel died, Jacob changed the boy’s name to Benjamin, which means “son of the right hand”; both of which names would be very significant foreshadows of Christ. Though we have earthly sin and sorrow, we have a Father that changes our name and claims us as His own. (There is a lot more to the changing of names spiritually but that is another post!)

Micah 4:8 and Gen 35:21 reference the same place – the Tower of Eder also called the Tower of the Flock. Micah is the most interesting, as he mentions the Kingdom and Dominion comes to the Tower of the Flock. 6 verses down, Micah again references the same shepherd who will arise from Bethlehem and feed his flock, to whom all of Israel will return. (I love the “feed” inuendo identifying what Jesus does for us with symbolic reference to the communion within His body.)

It is interesting when we read the prophets, we get the idea that they saw some things that they didn’t have words for. I don’t think they fully comprehended the coming of a Messiah, especially not in the form He came in; but they certainly had some understanding of an Exodus motif deliverance that the remnant of Israel was praying for and spent a lot of time and passion studying and waiting for, likely thanks to the influence of Daniel.

In Ancient Near East culture (ANE – this is what my Doctoral Degree is in), there are 3 lambing or shepherding seasons; early lambs born in November-January, Spring Lambs born in February-March and Summer lambs born in June. The Spring Season is the time of the Passover Sacrifice which required a 1-year old Lamb. Personally, I lean towards Jesus to have been born in this season (likely March 25 according to scholars) as the Lamb of God, as a foreshadowing of His ministry of becoming the Passover Lamb. Most people know the significance of shepherds in the Old Testament and the foreshadow of the royal priestly heritage that is given to us as New Testament shepherds of the New Covenant in Christ. According to the Mishnah (Bekhorot 5:4) shepherds and priests share the same family, we can also gather this from the Old Testament. Where this ties in, is that if the Luke 2:8 shepherds keeping watch were priests this also might explain how they knew where to go. I bet you think they just followed the star (but wasn’t that just the wise men? See how tradition twists this?) I believe the priestly shepherds knew EXACTLY where to go. The wise men from the East weren’t the only ones studying.

The most problematic point of this theory is that Migdal Eder or the “Tower of the Flock” is located outside of Bethlehem not “IN” the city of David as most people understand Matthew 2 to read. But that is a very Western way of reading, a more Eastern or Hebraic understanding of the text will help us. Note that Matthew 2 reads, “in Bethlehem of Judea.” the Greek word ἐν (en) has a broad range especially in the way that it is written when coupled with “of Judea.” In Greek because “of Judea” is added there is a good argument that it is Bethlehem proper rather than specific. In my opinion this is within the hermeneutics of the Greek preposition en which in its nearly 3000 biblical occurrences often takes on a much broader meaning such as on, at, by, or with making the Bethlehem proper usage perfectly acceptable according to any interlinear.

In taking everything in, this study leads to the conclusion, that the flocks, which pastured near Migdal Eder, were destined for Temple-sacrifices, and, accordingly, the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds, but priests. The Greek word which is translated in our English Bibles “manger” is Yatnh phat-ne. The definition of the word is of a “stall” where animals are kept and in Luke 13:15 is translated as such. In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) the word means a stall or a crib (See Proverbs 14:4). It is also worth noting that because shepherding was seasonal, the shepherd’s family housing would have been similar to the temporary dwelling or coming and going place we often refer to in English as an INN. This functioned not only as a home to the shepherds but likely a place of study for the priests. Sure, there were nicer places in Bethlehem, but this is where the “lowlier” of the caste would have been staying for Passover festivities.

You may not know that both Mary and Joseph were descendants of King David, though they were not considered among the aristocrats of Israel. Mary was related to Elizabeth, the wife of the priest, Zacharias, and thus in the Priestly line of Jesus. As most family land often remained in the family for generations there is a good chance that Mary and Joseph knew the location “in Bethlehem” well that had been in their line of priestly shepherds and the guest room was full in the Passover season but gave way to the “ordinary” kitchen or preparation area for the feast, where the livestock also remained. (This functions as a mosaic picture of the lowly of lowly servants’ quarters as a picture of Christs complete humility.) This also does away with the images of an irresponsible Joseph whose wife is about to birth the Messiah (as he knows) running around knocking door to door; it makes much more strategic Biblical sense.

Does it matter? Maybe not, sort of, yea?! Jesus’ birth at Migdal Eder places Jesus in the traditional location for Passover lambs to be born & explains how the shepherds knew where to go to find and certify “THE Passover lamb” upon birth. It also helps us to understand and explain a better more historically accurate version of Christ’s birth. But it also presents a better truth of the birth of Jesus that leads to a consistency of trust with the gospel message and building on the journey to discipleship.

Merry Christmas, may the Lord Bless you and keep you.

Dr. Ryan

I am blessed to have a family group that spends most of our life together, it basically is a non-stop Jesus party. We tend to always have “borrowed” kids over for the weekend and this morning (Sunday, December 18, 2022) wasn’t much different than most other weekends except we strategically had planned not to attend church Sunday for various reasons, one of which was to stay home and watch the Argentina – France World Cup final match that started at 9:00am. Now before you raise an eyebrow, please hear me out on this!

Normally I wouldn’t do this. Well, not really anyway. My boys are way into soccer and have been playing club just about from the time they could walk. I usually would tell you that club sports are one of the Satan’s best tools for removing families from Sunday morning fellowship. My friend Dr. Steve Cassell would say (in his best “waterboy” accent), that “club sports are the Devil”. So, throughout our club soccer days we have made it known to the club, coaches, and team that there are times, particularly Sunday when we just won’t be there, and the boys in some cases have been penalized for the decisions which is fine (I wouldn’t say that they have been persecuted for it either though). Some may argue we are breaking a commitment to club sports, but we firmly believe that our commitment to God always trumps everything else. We aren’t legalistic about club attendance or church attendance.

Which brings me to the main thrust of this article. Our family tries to not separate things sacred from other things in life, everything should be sacred before the Lord and thus we should worship Him 24/7 as much as we are able, that should be the goal. As homeschoolers, my wife and I have worked hard to make all of life an enjoyable learning experience that is continually honoring to the Lord. That said, we have decided to “skip” church quite a few times and these have become some of our favorite moments together with family and friends. I am sure that sounds strange but my wife and I and many others in our group have made a commitment to be our children’s primary educators in all aspects of life. I can think of several of these home church days that my kids will remember forever; and sadly, I can’t say that I can think of any traditional church services I feel that way about (perhaps the baptism services of my children.) We have many partners in this educational process and prefer them to be in the Jesus kingdom, we would love to start a Christian soccer club; but often it is also important to model Jesus to those outside of this community. Every now and then, (especially when we have friends over in a situation like this – that might be surprised we are skipping church) we are intentional to have something “churchish” in its place. Today, and most Sundays we call this “home church, but in our family, we also have experiences similar to this throughout the week at various times as well.” There is importance in Sunday morning church attendance, I won’t deny that; but there is also importance in families conducting their own “church” services with their friends and families, and I don’t think most evangelical American Christians do this enough. I would venture to say that these services likely will have more overall spiritual impact on my family and yours than most other conventional church services will, especially if you choose to really invest in them. And I would argue that this intimate description of teaching, testimony, and praise is far closer to the biblical intention of the body of believers meeting as the body of believers from the beginning of the pages of the scripture than what we have turned church into today. Today we have made it an entertainment party for everyone to attend. In bible times it was intended to be a meeting “for those that believe.” unbelievers weren’t invited to the assembly of the believers. That wouldn’t have made any sense. In a sacred world that was actually defilement towards those that were set apart. That is just one small example, but there are many more such as the size. Most of the Bible implies a meeting group smaller than 72, perhaps there was a good reason for this. Church has evolved far from what the scriptures modeled for us.

I knew the day was going to be unforgettable, so I wanted to take the opportunity to teach a special lesson. Matt and I have been doing a huge video series on our YouTube channel on the church and I wanted to share some of what we have been covering with my family.

When God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, we get the idea that the “halak” journey was based on intimate fellowship. Covenant story after story, and then with Israel the continued message that we get is that God wants a sacred relationship that is unending covenant relationship with us (signified by a ring in marriage.)  

Our life and church should have the trajectory of complete sacred living (set apart in holiness). The scriptures say that David had a heart after God’s heart, he wanted to be intimate with the Lord 24/7 and sought for Israel to also be.

Before we start, I want to say; as Christians we need to be careful to keep David in the right perspective. On the one hand he has a heart after God and has written some of the most incredible parts of the Bible, but I also would be careful to view him as a role model when you consider his life. Eighteen women. Multiple sons. Palace problems. Rebellion. Vindictive revenge. Adultery (more than once if Ahinaom is Saul’s wife). Conspiracy. Murder (certainly more than once). Failure as a father. It has the appearance of a Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde story. Traditional Jews don’t put David on the same pedestal as evangelical Christianity. They view Him as out of balance (shalom) or a having a life of chaos which is the opposite of what we should be attaining. It is also interesting that David is never allowed to build God’s temple which would be God’s dwelling place. Have you ever considered the ramifications of this as a foreshadow of what is to come eschatologically? It is also interesting that even on his deathbed David schemes murder. We have to be careful framing David theologically. It certainly isn’t the resume I am praying for my children. Jesus is our aim, not David! But that said, I look for the takeaways in any story and David has a lot that we can learn from.

David’s goal was that all of Israel was to be sacred and set apart to be Holy before the lord. His kingdom was based on 24/7 fellowship in God’s presence which was, at that time, seen through the ark of the Covenant in Israel. In Psalm 27:4 we can see this life pursuit, 

⁴ One thing I ask from the Lord, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the Lord and to seek him in his temple. 

And his passion for making a dwelling place for the Lord and bringing him back to the center of Israel in Psalm 132:3-9, 

³ “I will not enter my house 

or go to my bed, 

⁴ I will allow no sleep to my eyes 

or slumber to my eyelids, 

⁵ till I find a place for the Lord, 

a dwelling for the Mighty One of Jacob.” 

⁶ We heard it [the Ark] in Ephrathah, [Bethlehem]

we came upon it in the fields of Jaar: 

⁷ “Let us go to his dwelling place, 

let us worship at his footstool, saying, 

⁸ ‘Arise, Lord, and come to your resting place, 

you and the ark of your might. 

⁹ May your priests be clothed with your righteousness; 

may your faithful people sing for joy.’ ” 

During the time Eli was High Priest, Israel had lost the Ark to the Philistines in a battle and when they sent it back to Israel following plagues it never returned to the tabernacle of Moses again (Ps 78:60). Yet, in the tabernacle of Moses, the sacrifices, the events, the festivals, the rituals all continued for over 20 years void of God’s presence (sound a bit like some churches today?). In the time of Saul’s reign they forsook the Ark and the presence of the Lord (1 Chron. 13:3) and never even enquired about it. But, God’s presence was David’s one thing, his passion! 

In 2 Samuel 6-7 and I Chronicles 15-16 we read that one of the first things David did as King was to place the ark in a tent of worship and commanded Asaph to worship the Lord Day and night (I Chronicles 16:37.) David enabled 288 musicians in 24 teams, each with an elder of 12 family members in continual prayer and worship. All of Israel including the government would be sacred with worship as the center piece through David’s entire rule (I Chronicles 25:6-7). By the end of David’s rule, the number of musicians had grown to over 4000 (I Chronicles 23:5) that continued to minister night and day in the center of life by the ark, but also grew to other places throughout the nation with the idea that every family would follow the model and live as a unified set apart holy nation before the Lord. God gave David a vision for his earthly kingdom to be linked to the throne room of God and begin functioning “on earth as it is in heaven” (1 Chron 28).

There are so many connection between David’s tabernacle and what John sees (and what David saw) in Revelation 4 and 5:

·  In Heaven four living creatures are directing worship around the throne / in David’s tabernacle 4 worship directors organizing worship.

·  In heaven 24 Elders / in David’s tabernacle 24 worship leaders with music teams. 

· In heaven they played instruments / David introduces instruments into worship. Before this we don’t see musical instruments used worship (and if so, rarely) in the tabernacle of Moses. 

· In heaven the worshippers encircled the throne / in David’s tabernacle the worshippers encircled the Ark. (A circle, not rows)

· In Heaven Singing was continual (24/7)/ for 33 years (the same length of Jesus’ life) David had unceasing worship and hosting of God’s presence on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. (Ps 134 is about the night shift- “those who minister by night in the Lord’s tent”)

· In Heaven God rules in the midst of the worship / David made worship the central thing of his government and the first thing he did as King.

· In 2 Samuel 6 when David brings the ark into Jerusalem and he strips down to the dress of a priest though he is a king. Like the elders in heaven who cast down their crowns, David sets the example for worship in humility as our priestly role. He is a picture of the blending back together of the king and priest- the Jesus image bearing role.

David brought the Ark, God’s presence, into his tabernacle and he set up 24/7 worship and prayer for 33 years. It was the New Covenant in the middle of the Old Covenant! David’s Tabernacle didn’t have a holy of holies like in Moses’ tabernacle. There was no veil. They worshipped and ministered right before the Ark in presence of God at His throne. This is what God wants- heaven on earth!

Also, there were no blood sacrifices in David’s tabernacle. There was one sacrifice as they brought the ark into the tabernacle but the fire that never went out (Lev 6:13) was the sacrifice of praise, which were songs and prayers (spiritual sacrifices), just like in the heavenly throne room. Similarly, in the New Covenant we have one sacrifice (Jesus) and our spiritual sacrifices are our prayers and praise. This fellowship in God’s presence is the pleasing aroma to the Lord.  

I hope you are picking up on the correlation without me spelling it out.

Today was incredibly memorable for our family. The last time we had a world cup my youngest doesn’t remember it, He was 7. My oldest was 12 and it simply was not an epic experience for him, he likely just thought it was strange dad was watching tv and specific sports (My wife and I often consider spending precious minutes or hours watching TV a complete waste of time and very much limit digital viewing in our house.) The next time we will have a world cup my oldest will be 20 and likely playing soccer in a college hopefully with all of his “covenant” friends. In other words, this will be our family’s primary world cup experience together in our lifetime. What would my family remember? Maybe they will remember the game, but my goal was that they would remember this as one of our epic “home church” and family experiences. They will remember growing up that home church was the best! And hopefully when they have kids, they won’t think twice about leading their families as the primary worship leaders of the scriptures and Jesus kingdom in their families. What happened that morning was likely the best soccer match in history. My kids will remember this day forever. But they won’t simply remember Lionel Messi, or the double hat trick by him or Mbappe, or the shootout; they will also, and I pray more importantly, remember those things that our family was dedicated to the Lord in all we do.

Today our family dynamic grew incredibly close. We put God first, and emphasized what Jesus continually taught; love, compassion, family, communion, and discipleship.

In Israel’s history there were 7 seasons of coming back to walking in discipleship with the Lord in the 1000 years between David and Jesus (revival?). Each time Davidic worship and the 24/7 worship mindset was reinstated the Lord moved in a mighty way.

• Solomon (2 Chr. 8:14–15).
• Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. 20:20–22, 28).
• Joash (2 Chr. 23:1–24:27).
• Hezekiah (2 Chr. 35:1–27).
• Ezra (Ezra 3:10)
• Nehemiah ( Neh. 12:28–47).

Likewise in the days of Jesus there is evidence the the Essenes held to Davidic worship and prayer as well.

That is also our prayer for all those that we interact with, that we might create a discipleship Jesus culture to all that we come in contact with where King Jesus is worshipped 24/7 and we as a family lead the way to a better way of church as those set apart to do his will bringing Heaven to earth.

Written by Originally by Dr. Ryan and later updated and re-edited by Matt Mouzakis of x44 (You can watch a sermon by Matt on a similar subject below.)

My life Mantra is the calling to teach a better community of devotion to Jesus and reinvent discipleship. Most readers know my take on discipleship. There were/are fans of Jesus, most “Christians” were and continue to be followers of Jesus, but He desired most that we be His disciples. Christ’s definition of discipleship was to leave everything on the beach and completely follow Him, to not return to the ways of the world (as other Rabbinical disciples did in the latter part of the week.) We don’t do that much today specifically in American and more precisely as the evangelical westernized church (body of believers.)

Disciples were persecuted and in Jesus’ time almost all became Martyrs.

The preeminent calling of all of the Bible is to follow Jesus completely and become one of his disciples in a discipleship community. I’m not sure the average Christian knows of a community that fits this definition of a disciple, or perhaps even a single person. Nicodemus is a great example of what American Christianity has become. Nicodemus was likely the primary financial supporter of Jesus’ ministry and when he asks Jesus what is the next step, Jesus gives Him his definition of discipleship which leaves Nicodemus saying He isn’t willing to do that. Nicodemus is a mosaic of westernized churchianity. What Jesus desired more than Nicodemus’ money was his all-in commitment. Too often I hear American Christians talking about Jesus “just” wanting their heart. As that does hold truth, Jesus was very clear that what he desired was the heart but also the literal physical action of becoming nothing for Him. Its great if you have Jesus training wheels on and your giving big to the great American church (in His name) but Jesus is pretty clear that He would rather have all of you, and all meant everything by His definition of discipleship, and it has very little to do with an offering plate at your mega (likely any number over 72) church.

In traditional OT Hebraic thought, by the time you were an elder you esteemed to give away everything, this was a sign that you were ready to become one with the Father. Jesus sets the record straight by proclaiming that His disciples shouldn’t wait until they are elders (older wiser people) to do this. As young disciples you-we should leave it all on the beach. In other words, Jesus doesn’t even want your “treasures” of the world. Most of the money we are trying to give God or the church is not sacred but rather defiled in an OT sense of purity and sacrifice. Tainted sacrifices aren’t accepted (even if you had a better heart posture.) As an example, if you worked 70 hours that week to make that money but it took you and your family farther from God and sacred living, it represented something that had been defiled not sacred. God only desires what is Holy. In terms of OT purity sin wasn’t given to God it was figuratively (KPR -EXPIATION) carried out of the camp by the scapegoat. We wonder what is wrong with our churches – well, essentially, we are funding them with defiled money and God doesn’t honor that.

Today Christians in America say they are being persecuted. Perhaps I am old fashion, but I don’t think so. And the reason I don’t think so is because Satan (or the powers and principalities of the world) are pretty content with a bunch of lukewarm fans with one foot in the world and one in the kingdom of Jesus. If we still had disciples, we would still have persecution. Some fans and followers occasionally do disciple-type things and may experience a “glimmer” of tribulation or persecution, but likely have no idea what Paul really meant by persecution in 2 Timothy.

To me it appears that the Great American Evangelical church has mostly or likely completely missed the calling of the heart of Jesus for discipleship. Americans essentially fit the description of Nicodemus, the rich man that wasn’t willing to give up what he had to be a disciple and walked away. Perhaps Jesus still had a place for Him in the kingdom, but we aren’t told that. I doubt Nicodemus faced any persecution after his conversation with Jesus.

Let me ask you a question. Does the Bible teach that Jesus would’ve rather had thousands of lukewarm fans or a few disciples? I think you know the answer clearly.

One will be persecuted, and one will be left alone. Which will you be?

We often mix biblical words, so let’s establish some defintions:

-Trials- peirasmos often has a positive connotation associated with an athletic event -you’re going to be worked, but it’s essentially building muscle. Sometimes used in a sense of resisting temptation.

-Tribulation- thlipsis various hardship that may or may not be of spiritual nature (but can end in Joy)

-Persecution – diógmos (dioko below) when someone or something is vehemently pursuing you to harm you

Trials and tribulations often lead to Joy… but persecution it’s a little bit different… it’s Biblical affliction. Let’s consider Paul to Timothy

…and indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 2 Timothy 3:12

Typically, in our western minds the term persecution takes on the thought or image of Saul hunting Christians. The best definition is a malicious intent to cause harm… it’s a little bit different than trials and tribulations, but all of them can take on a contronym form meaning. (A contronym means something that carries the same thought or word but can be an extreme positively or negatively. An example of this is the Hebrew word Barak that can mean to bless or to curse.) Something that is negative, when given to God can turn into something positive which the scripture defines as joy.

In Greek, the verb in this verse for persecution is dioko. It’s about pursuit. It is actually a word play… it means that we are followers of Christ but will be pursued aggressively by Jesus and then others will also pursue us aggressively in tribulation. But the contronym form means that the same verb also means to press hard after good things.  As we pursue Him, we will be persecuted by others.  In Greek, it’s really written well…

Paul is the main person we think about in terms of persecution towards Christians. I always find it interesting that he was the main source of persecution of Christians at one time, and then probably becomes the most persecuted Christian of all times eventually to martyrdom. It’s actually a little bit of a reversal of the contronym. Such a great puzzle.

So, as I often say, Paul thinks, Hebraicly, not like a Roman or Greek. The comparable verb in Hebrew is radad.  It means to beat down or to bring to near extinction. Paul is telling Timothy that as he leads others to discipleship that the world and powers will try to exterminate them.

Interesting, has discipleship been exterminated in the US?

This is where I have to come down to my main point that we don’t really fit the definition of biblical persecution today. When we say we are persecuted as Christians today, we likely aren’t. We may be experiencing brief moments of momentary trouble, but likely not persecution.

Evangelical Christian Americans might be going through trials are even tribulation, but in my opinion, none of us (or very few of us) have really been persecuted. We like to think we are the remnant of discipleship but look around. Does it look like we are living out what Paul and Jesus describe as discipleship? When Paul is planting churches in the New Testament he is sent out as an apostle and established a discipleship community where people leave the world and study the Bible for 5-6 hours a day and live in the community together. They don’t need to worry about tomorrow because they don’t have much of this world to worry about.

Now if you live in this kind of community you’re going to be persecuted.

Peter Leithart (one of my favorites) says, “Christianity is institutionalized worldliness . . . worldliness that has become so much our second nature that we call it piety.”

Leithart argues persuasively that what we call Christianity is really the accommodation of religious ideals and doctrines to the larger culture.  We have converted the Kingdom of God community of Jesus discipleship into an acceptable form of right thinking and right feeling.  But this isn’t what Jesus or Paul described as an “all in” disciple. The reason we aren’t beat down is because, as Jesus said, we have become lovers of the world.  By and large, Christianity is now the religious effort to meld with the culture instead of the call to stand in opposition to the culture – and that culture includes the Church.

We as a church are no longer cultivating a Jesus community discipleship culture.

Want more? Checkout this episode on the church…

Ecclesiastes 4:12
“Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.”

ABSTRACT:

If you have attended any wedding in the last several years you have probably heard a pastor refer to the cord of 3 strands mentioned in Ecclesiastes 4. There is a lot more to this than what you likely heard at the wedding though.

The English word for cord is Biblically rooted in the Hebrew word tiqvah, which has a subtly different meaning/translation in every one of its thirty-one English occurrences. It signifies something deeply longed for or set apart… hope.

In Joshua 2:14 we get a bit of a wordplay in the way that Tiqvah is also translated as “hope.” Rahab is saved by hope, but she “saved” the spies. There is another word play later when the text says that Rahab is brought “into the midst” of Israel. In Hebrew the dual meaning of “into the midst” also are the words for the womb or “inner part” in Hebrew. The imagery is that Rahab is a harlot involved in “inner parts” sin but is transferred into communal salvation, redemption, and deliverance, an exodus motif again. This is the contronym of hope in the Bible, that your worst curse might be given to God and the result might be transformed into the greatest blessing of your life.

THREEFOLD CORD – HACHUT HAMESHULASH החוט המשׁלשׁ

At face value Ecclesiastes 4:12 is a strange verse to apply to a wedding. The immediate context is defense of an attack, but the greater context is of intimate love and marriage.

The word withstand in Hebrew is ‘amed which means taking a firm position, but it’s a strange choice for the word. It isn’t a “stand and fight” word… it’s a building word that describes a foundation; building on a firm foundation. It carries the notion of a strong fortress in unity rather than a “fight.” It is one of the many passages painting a backward kingdom idea that paves the way for the messiah’s core message of the ultimate humility in servanthood.

In ancient times a threefold cord was a measuring tape. Equal lengths of a cord were tied together; most of the Hebrew culture thrived on building. If you remember, the Hebrew temple was formed together like a puzzle (with no fasteners) they were craftsman very different than the rest of the world. In order to form the best built (and strongest) items in the world (without using fasteners) foundationally they had to measure things well. This is where a cord of three comes in. It was the basic tool that most craftsman used to fashion something that the entire community could be proud of. It reminded them constantly of who they represented. They weren’t like the world, they were to be unified in their body and fit together like a puzzle with each part serving a purpose.

In many ways it became a mosaic of freedom, heritage, and calling that served as a reminder that all of their “work” should be fully devoted to the Lord.

The craftsmen’s cord was typically 3 strands measuring 6 palms or what was more commonly referred to as a cubit. 1 ell [cubit] (amah) = 2 spans (zeret), or 6 palms [handbreadths]

What you “made” was representative of who your people “were.” It also continually reminded you that you were linked to a higher power. The foundation was based on the brotherhood of mediation founded in covenant calling. Your part of something much greater than yourself.

Every time you built something you were representing the “father” but also the covenant “brotherhood.” That’s where we get that (UNION) term today.

If your core (foundation was off or missing the measured mark) or your covenant was not correct, nothing else could “square” up or be measured correctly. It would all be wrong.

Are we are letting the world measure our lives? Have we lost our covenant cord? Have we forgotten who we represent?

---

---

---

DIVING DEEPER: For those willing to be “challenged”

It is no secret that I often feel like the church is off course (hamartia / missing the mark) compared to what Jesus asks of us. Our basis of measurement for determining where we have been and are headed seems skewed between the world and the kingdom of Jesus. Some argue that the church looks nothing like the intentions of the first century apostles or what Jesus sought to build. Many would even say that the church often does as much harm as good. That we are enabling the world in the name of Jesus and have wondered far from the call of discipleship in the very name of it.

Jesus says to check your possessions on the beach, Christian Americans have just as many possessions as their worldly counterparts. Jesus tells us (the church) to care for the poor and weak, yet our worldly government does a far better job of this than any church I have witnessed. Jesus tells us to live in humility even to death, but the church doesn’t resemble servanthood or martyrdom much anymore. Sexual perversion within the ranks of church leadership are all too common. There are several reasons for these things but one of them is that our standard of measurement is long lost or forgotten.

Joshua 2 describes the cord as a scarlet line in a window that would give deliverance, it takes on the continued exodus motif of the Israelite people into their promised land. You also might remember the Mishnah when talking about the bloody tie cord of the sacrifice placed on the head of a scapegoat then hung on the curtain of the holy of holies.

Scarlet is a Biblical metaphor for things that are lost in the world but have been regained at great cost. It sometimes can carry sexual connotation because of the intimacy inferred. It is the closest metaphor we may have on this earth to the intimacy our father in Heaven desires with us on a spiritual level. Sex is also a contronym in the Bible showing something that can be the furthest from God’s plan for you and the closest when performed in the right or wrong context of the heart.

The English word for cord in Hebrew is the word tiqvah, which has a subtly different meaning/translation in every one of its thirty-one English occurrences. It signifies something deeply longed for or set apart and poetically displays a great dynamic range. This is one of the greatest themes of the Bible & a great study on what covenant means.  I referenced Joshua 2:18 because I wanted to point out an intentional word-play; a great example of the elaborate interconnections found in the Hebrew Scripture that are invisible to us in English.  I say this a lot, but the ancient scriptures weren’t written to us in our modern church (but they are for us); they are clearly written in Hebrew to Hebrew readers because Hebrew readers can read between the lines. Foundationally we have to understand what is going on here before we can apply it to ourselves today.

The wordplay comes in the way that Tiqvah is also translated “hope.” Think of it as a deeply desired lifeline in the story of Rahab and how she is “linked” to the Messiah. Rahab is saved by hope, but she “saved” the spies. There is another word play later when the text says that Rahab is brought “into the midst” of Israel. In Hebrew the dual meaning of “into the midst” also are the words for the womb or “inner part” in Hebrew. The imagery is that Rahab is a harlot involved in “inner parts” sin but is transferred into a sign of salvation, redemption, and deliverance, the exodus motif again. This is the contronym of hope in the Bible, that your worst curse might be given to God and the result might be transformed into the greatest blessing of your life. The red cord protected Rahab’s family as a similar sign of a red Passover offering for them. Notice the communal focus of salvation. The individual affects the whole community. (Today we think me-istic in terms of church rather than see the results of the whole fellowship foundationally missing the mark.) Rahab should be someone that Israel is told not to associate with, but instead grace leads way to hope and even links her to the line of the Messiah. We are “the line” of Rahab as Gentiles grafted into the faith and offered a lifeline to the Father to be restored in hope through grace to be a royal chosen priesthood. We are offered the scarlet line of grace but asked to foundationally follow what is asked of us… one of the related problems today is that as a whole the evangelical church has welcomed uncleanliness into the church and communally caused us to miss the foundation given to us. We have fallen out of the line of grace but expect what is offered with the covenant of three strands we have rejected.

At face value Ecclesiastes 4:12 is a strange verse to apply to a wedding. The immediate context is defense of an attack, but the greater context is of intimate love and marriage.

As we exegetically analyze the verse we need to first ask who is prevailing, the attacker or the attacked? In English it’s a hot mess, in Hebrew it is clear. The syntax shows that the pronoun is an “inseparable pronoun” that is attached to the verb teqepo (prevail) so it is the attacker overcoming the one being attacked.  If it were a separable pronoun then it would be the other way around. The word withstand is ‘amed which means taking a firm position, but it’s a strange word. It isn’t a “stand and fight” word… it’s a building word that describes a foundation; building on a firm foundation. The word two is hashamin literally the two. There is a definite article in front of that too signifying that a very specific person will stand against this one prevailing. The word for prevail is teqepo, which signifies the strongest of resistance can be won or overcome. There is also an inference in the unity of the body being stronger together.

Threefold cord in Hebrew is hachut hameshulash. In ancient times a threefold cord was a measuring tape. Equal lengths of a cord were tied together; most of the Hebrew culture thrived on building. If you remember, the Hebrew temple was formed together like a puzzle (with no fasteners) they were craftsman very different than the rest of the world. In order to form the best built items in the world foundationally they had to measure things well. This is where a cord of three comes in. It was the basic tool that most craftsman used to fashion something that the entire community could be proud of. Often times, it was a rite of passage for a young man to take time to fashion an incredible cord of three strands. It would identify him and his family. In many ways it became a mosaic of freedom, heritage, and calling that served as a reminder that all of their “work” should be fully devoted to the Lord.

The craftsmen’s cord was typically 3 strands measuring 6 palms or what was more commonly referred to as a cubit. But they likely had cords of three strands for other common units too… but always a cord of three strands. Interesting that today 6 palms is around 16 on center.

The Israelite measurements were related as follows:

• 1 palm [handbreadth] (tefach) = 4 digit (etzba’ot)
• 1 span (zeret) = 3 palms (tefahim)
• 1 ell [cubit] (amah) = 2 spans (zeret), or 6 palms [handbreadths]
• 1 mil (mil) = 2000 ells [cubits] (amot)
• 1 parasang (parasa) = 4 mils (milin)

These three strands represented a few things. It first represented your trust in covenant community, it was more than about just you. What you “made” was representative of who your people “were.” it also continually reminded you that you were linked to a higher power. The foundation was based on the brotherhood of mediation founded in covenant calling.

So how do we get to a wedding union out of this? Well, that’s what Ecclesiastes is about… but not entirely. Essentially, the Hebrew understood that God was the foundation of every relationship that they represented in. This cord was a tool to measure. It would remind them every day that their measurements in life should be weighed with God’s ideals, and not by the rest of the world. The Hebrews had their own unit of measurements that were different from the rest of the world, and those very units reminded them of the one who gave them redemption. Every time you built something you were representing the “father” but also the covenant “brotherhood.” That’s where we get that (UNION) term in modern today.

If your core (foundation was off or missing the measured mark) or your covenant was not correct, nothing else could “square” up or be measured correctly. It would all be wrong.

Tying the Knot? Hebrew?

I bet your wondering if this is where we get the slogan “tying the knot” for marriage. yes and no. To the Hebrew the answer is no. You see the cord of three strands is specifically “fitted or formed,” (today we say braided together); it was not tied or knotted up. In fact, a knot is what you “don’t” want. In an ancient context if something was knotted up that was symbolic of a problem. In this example if there was a not in your cord of three strands that links you to God in marriage it meant something was broken or clogged up. For instance, if you tie a knot in a rope and apply pressure guess where the rope breaks? At the knot, you theoretically created a weak spot. Those who “tie” knots actually realize that splicing a rope together in a braid like fashion actually creates strength unlike a knot. The Hebrews understood this and would have never said that we are “tying a knot” in marriage. That would have implied something negative not positive. However, the rest of the world observed the Hebraic braid of the marriage ceremony and called it tying the knot. In essence, that saying does come from this Hebraic act, it just isn’t really accurate in the Hebraic or biblical sense. It is actually the opposite!

In the modern evangelical wedding, there’s an emphasis to start things off on the right foot in covenant with God. But it means so much more than this, it means that every single thing that we do needs to be with the “measurement” of the Lord in mind first and foremost. In ancient Hebraic mindset, sinners (or those that were not set apart) were not to be part of the community (assembly-ekklesia) until they had converted. Today our modern thought of inviting anyone, and everyone to church in hopes of converting them has lost the foundation of covenant, and led to defilement… it is inviting what is unholy not holy. We are letting the world measure our lives and tie the church in knots. This is just a simple example of many areas that have gotten off or skewed because foundationally we have lost our covenant cordage. In some cases we have gotten so far off that I am not sure we are even recognizable as the disciples Jesus intended us to be in terms of representing HIS IMAGE.

It isn’t too late to return to the mindset of measuring everything by what Jesus says matters, but it will likely take a community that is in covenant together to get there!

---

SOURCE LIST:

-The Source of Measures by James Ralston Skinner

-The Cubit: A History and Measurement Commentary by Mark H. Stone

-Cube, Gate, and Measuring Tools: A Biblical Pattern by Matthew B. Brown

-Marital Relations in Ancient Judaism (review) by Dvora E. Weisberg

Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies

-TEMPORARY MARRIAGE: A COMPARISON OF THE JEWISH AND ISLAMIC CONCEPTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2018