If you know anything about me, you know that I am going to tell you what the Bible says as transparently as possible, present the options and issues and let you come to your own conclusion. Nothing is spoon fed. So, I am not going to approach this very difficult issue slightly differently than I have in the past. I wrote a post of homosexuality years ago and I haven’t changed my perspective on that post, but I have come to also frame the same discussions a bit differently. You might want to read this post first.
What I think doesn’t really matter, it is what the Bible says. However, in any theology and interpretation we have to deduce things. When the Bible isn’t perfectly clear we use our God given minds guided by the Holy Spirit to arrive at truth. Sometimes we come to different results, and I would encourage you to honor and respect varied biblically based views.
Homosexuality is Biblically described as sin
The Bible introduces human sexuality within the context of God’s creative design. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). This foundational premise establishes the binary nature of human sexuality as woven into God’s original creation. In Genesis 2:24, the union of man and woman is depicted as a one-flesh covenant: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” The emphasis on male-female pairing is the template for marriage, consistently referenced throughout Scripture.1
In describing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 19:4-11 recounts men of the city demanding sexual relations with Lot’s guests, who were angels in human form. The account highlights immoral behavior at multiple levels, which includes homosexual acts. While this passage also addresses other grave sins (Ezekiel 16:49-50 mentions pride, neglect of the poor, and abominable acts), the sexual violation in Genesis 19 is one of the clearest aspects of Sodom’s guilt. Homosexuality is clearly treated as sin.2
Leviticus 18:22 states, “You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.” Likewise, Leviticus 20:13 addresses the same practice as forbidden. These prohibitions appear in a broader context that includes various other sexual sins (e.g., incest, bestiality, and adultery), demonstrating that Scripture draws boundaries around intimacy for Israel, reflecting God’s holiness and will for human sexuality.3
Although the Gospels do not record Jesus specifically saying the word “homosexuality,” in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus refers to the “male and female” design for marriage reaffirming the OT Genesis covenant by a since of REMEZ which then would carry other OT connotation. Jesus also underscores sexual purity (Matthew 5:27-28; Mark 7:20-23). He does not offer a direct commentary on same-sex relationships in the recorded Gospels, but many will argue that He established framework for marriage, sexual purity, and upholding Scriptural commands providing the overarching context. Matthew 5:17-18 underscores that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not dismantle it. Ethical instructions, including sexual conduct, gain deeper clarity in the New Covenant but remain consistent in reflecting God’s righteous nature. Within this framework, contexts like Leviticus remain relevant as a moral guidepost, interpreted in the light of Christ’s sacrificial redemption.4
Paul’s epistles also touch on the acts in Romans 1:26-27: “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another…” This passage highlights a departure from God’s design, emphasizing that certain acts are not in line with His created order. Perhaps similar to how Jesus mentioned them. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral… nor homosexuals, nor thieves… will inherit the kingdom of God.” Here, Paul places homosexual behavior among a list of sins. Yet in the following verse, 1 Corinthians 6:11, he offers hope: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed…” The emphasis is on transformation and redemption offered by God. This is a challenging interpretation. Finally, 1 Timothy 1:9-11 also categorizes homosexual acts with other sins that contradict “sound teaching,” reinforcing the broader biblical ethic on sexuality. In each instance, Paul addresses same-sex activity as one among various actions deemed inconsistent with the holy living God calls believers to pursue. It seems to treat homosexuality as any other “SINFUL” act.5 Those involved in these acts are missing the mark.
Why this is complicated and considerations of homosexuality
Well, the above probably sounds rather convincing. And I think if you are truly unbiased, it should. I would argue there is a strong biblical directive that homosexuality both NT and OT treat the act of homosexuality as a sin. But let’s also consider the other ramifications of the arguments. It seems that much of our evangelical Christian world continues to live in a sinful state. You might reconsider…
Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger in the dirt. They kept at him, badgering him. He straightened up and said, “The sinless one among you, go first: Throw the stone.” Bending down again, he wrote some more in the dirt. Hearing that, they walked away, one after another, beginning with the oldest. The woman was left alone. Jesus stood up and spoke to her. “Woman, where are they? Does no one condemn you?” “No one, Master.” “Neither do I,” said Jesus. “Go on your way. From now on, don’t sin.”] Note: John 7:53–8:11 [the portion in brackets] is not found in the earliest handwritten copies. John 8:7-11
The OT is complicated. What do we take with us and what do we leave behind? Most Evangelical Christians I know no longer keep much if any of the law (starting with the most basic 10 commandments of honoring the sabbath – you probably don’t even know when that starts and ends let alone keep it!) What comes with us as Christians and what stays behind as antiquated law that can’t or no longer needs to be followed in the spirit of Romans 7:6? Perhaps the things Jesus restates come with, but then we have the issue that Jesus followed the law to a T (Levitical not Rabbinical law) and we are to follow His example.6
Let me give you a brief example of some of the other difficulties…
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Exodus 21:7 seems to say it is just to sell my daughter to slavery. Exodus 35:2 clearly states violators of the Sabbath may be put to death. Furthermore, homosexuality is often listed with other things that seem much more minor in the OT and could be viewed as premodern-world best practice for health. For instance, Lev. 11:10 says eating shellfish is an “abomination”, and using same words used to describe homosexuality in Lev. 18.7 The argument would then be that perhaps the law suggested things to an ancient world that would keep their nation pure and (sexually) disease free (circumcision, and various purification laws.) Once science caught up with a modern world are these no longer concerns? Do you want to get into a conversation of intention? You might have no issues eating shellfish today but speak up against homosexuality. Is that biased? Did Jesus truly state everything that was important to continue to keep in the law? Does your theology say if Jesus didn’t restate something then it doesn’t need to be followed? He was pretty vague on homosexuality. Some would say if His intention was to call it sin, He could have been much clearer on it. If he was a good teacher wouln’t he have been more clear if that was His intention? What about other simple issues like Lev. 11:6-8 says that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, did you ever consider a football is made of pigskin? Why do some Christians seem to so easily pick and choose what to condemn from the law and what to not even consider? Lev.19:19 indicates we shouldn’t plant two different crops in the same field, or wear garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). You could even argue Lev.24:10-16 makes a case to stone them or that Lev. 20:14 says to burn those caught in incestual relationships. Are you starting to see the complications that might come with being unbiased to the text, trying to decide what still should carry over to us? Why are women in the OT not upheld to the same sexual standards as men?8 What about miskebe issa?9 Do we want to get into that conversation?
Lastly, aren’t we called to strive to live 100% towards the finished eschatological goal? Some have said that there will be no genders in heaven, however I would argue the Bible seems to lean the other way. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates people will lose or change their gender in heaven. On the contrary, the Bible implies that we will remain who we are in heaven, and gender is likely part of who we are. In paradise, Lazarus was still Lazurus, and Abraham was still Abraham (Luke 16:22–24). But make no mistake, the first two chapters and the last two chapters are God’s ideals and at the very least there is gender equality. But that still doesn’t address all the questions or issues eschatologically. Jesus says, “At the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” – Matthew 22:30 The problem is Angels in Heaven had a distinctive Genesis 6 problem that had to do with all things sexual. What do you do with that? If you are going down this road, you might also consider the texts of Genesis 3:15, Genesis 6:2, Genesis 19:5-8, in comparison to Galations 3:26 and Mark 12:25.
CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS
Each person may have a different interpretation of the scripture and be in a slightly different situation. I think we should walk in balance and peace but encourage better Biblical interpretation. Has modernity and science changed over time compared to the law as a stop gap for the coming of the messiah and possibly modern medicine? (Some will argue God uses modern medicine, some see modern medicine as opposite of the healing God offers.) There are several things that should come into your theological lens in terms of agreement within your theology on this matter.
On the one hand, if you are reading this, you most likely believe the Bible is God’s Word and we can’t with integrity deny that it teaches that sex outside the parameters of a monogamous, life-long, marriage covenant is sin, whether it is sex with a person of a different gender or sex with a person of the same gender. We find the arguments of those who try to argue that Rom.1:24-28-, I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 don’t apply to monogamous gay relationships simply aren’t very persuasive. On the other hand, we sense that something is “off” with the stance of the church throughout history, and the stance of most evangelical churches today, toward gay people. Jesus would have unequivocally loved them and invited them to repent and join His kingdom. The approach isn’t consistent or balanced.
As an example, many of us wonder why it is that the church (rightly) embraces without question people who have been divorced and remarried – several times, in some cases –but adamantly excludes committed gay couples – couples who sometimes have a love for one another that puts the love of many straight couples to shame. What makes this question especially important is that the New Testament’s teaching that divorce and remarriage involves sin is much more emphatic and clear than it’s teaching that gay unions involve sin (see e.g. Mt. 5:32; 19:9). In fact, while Jesus taught on the sin of divorce and remarriage several times, he never even mentioned homosexuality. I have said it many times over the years, but once you step away from God’s ideal of 1 man and 1 woman united as one before the LORD in ANY WAY… you are outside of His perfect will for you. In every other situation grace covers you equally. However, we are also told to not continue to live in sin. You might argue that remarriage isn’t necessarily sin but living in homosexuality is. We also have to consider not giving into the tendencies, urge or temptations. What about the one who has the sexual urges towards homosexuality but never gratifies those urges? Isn’t that essentially the same as not giving into any sinful temptation? I think if you are truly approaching this issue with an un-biased approach toward faithful hermeneutical interpretation this subject is going to be far more complicated than you may have ever considered.
Let me get back to grace. My point is not that the church should exclude divorced and remarried people. While divorce and remarriage “misses the mark” of God’s ideal, which is the Bible’s definition of sin (harmartia), I believe that, by God’s grace, this is sometimes the best option for people. My point is rather that there seems to be an inconsistency on the part of the church on this matter, and many of us wonder why.10
Scripture consistently presents homosexual practice, like adultery and various other sexual acts outside of a man-woman marriage covenant, as contrary to God’s design. So, let’s be consistent!
At the same time, the Bible declares the potential for repentance, transformation, and redemption for all people regardless of background or personal history. For many interpreters, this forms the unified, scriptural teaching on homosexuality. In summary, the biblical record reflects a consistent stance on the question at hand-rooted in God’s initial design, repeated in the ethical instructions of both Old and New Testaments, and ultimately encompassed by the message of grace and hope found in Christ.
Coogan 2010, p. 135: “Finally, the Hebrew Bible is silent about lesbian relationships, probably because they did not relate to patriarchy—or, for that matter, to paternity.” ↩︎
Alpert, Rebecca T. (2009). “Reconsidering Solitary Sex from a Jewish Perspective”. In Ruttenberg, Danya (ed.). The Passionate Torah: Sex and Judaism. NYU Press. p. 185. ISBN978-0-8147-7605-6. In the Hebrew Bible there is no same-gender sexuality for women and no allusion to female masturbation, whereas lying with a man as with a woman is prohibited at least twice in the Torah.↩︎
“Since illicit carnal relations are implied by the term miškĕbê ʾiššâ, it may be plausibly suggested that homosexuality is herewith forbidden for only the equivalent degree of forbidden heterosexual relations, namely, those enumerated in the preceding verses (D. Stewart). However, sexual liaisons occurring with males outside these relations would not be forbidden. And since the same term miškĕbê ʾiššâ is used in the list containing sanctions (20:13), it would mean that sexual liaisons with males, falling outside the control of the paterfamilias, would be neither condemnable nor punishable. Thus miskĕbê ʾiššâ, referring to illicit male—female relations, is applied to illicit male—male relations, and the literal meaning of our verse is: do not have sex with a male with whose widow sex is forbidden. In effect, this means that the homosexual prohibition applies to Ego with father, son, and brother (subsumed in v. 6) and to grandfather—grandson, uncle—nephew, and stepfather—stepson, but not to any other male.” – Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Yale Bible vol. 3, Yale University Press, 2007, page 1569 ↩︎
Q: I have a question regarding Israel. Would Israelites still be considered God’s chosen people or would that have changed with Jesus’s atoning works?
Yes, Israel was (and is) called God’s chosen people in Scripture—but what that means and how we understand it after Jesus is really important to clarify.
When God called Israel His “chosen people” in the Old Testament, it wasn’t primarily a statement about salvation. Rather, Israel was chosen (commissioned) for a vocation—to be a light to the nations (see Exodus 19:5–6; Deuteronomy 7:6; Isaiah 49:6). (You might see this as a regaining of the nations if you follow a Deuteronomy 32 worldview.) God gave them the Law (Torah), the covenants, and the promises, not as an end in themselves, but so that through them, the nations of the world would come to know and worship Yahweh. Paul puts it like this in Romans 3:2—that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. In a sense, this was the calling of Adam and Eve and when they fall short, God commissions Israel in the same calling, nation that would be called commissioned as a holy royal priesthood to represent Yahweh to the rest of the fallen world.
But Israel consistently struggled to live out this calling. From nearly the beginning of the story the nation failed to honor Yahweh (golden calf incident) and instead of the entire nation (all 12 tribes) representing the Lord as priests, God adapted the plan and then called just the Levites to be His representatives as priests first to Israel in hopes of then commissioning the entire nation of Israel to the original plan and act as ambassadors of Yahweh. The Old Testament tells a story of covenant, failure, judgment, and hope for restoration. Israel continued to falter. They gave up their theocracy of one God – Yahweh to choose to be led by an earthly king. They drifted farther and farther from the plan until God finally hands them over to their own demise, the exile was a key turning point. Even after the return of the exile to Jerusalem, most scholars believe Israel never returned to the LORD. God longed for Israel to return to the true redemption and the coming of God’s kingdom. Unfortunately, Israel continued to fall short and not seem to live out their calling or commissioning.
Jesus enters the narrative with a similar mission. He doesn’t reject Israel’s story—He steps into it. He comes first to “the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24), calling them back to their original vocation. He chooses twelve disciples, clearly symbolizing a reconstitution of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is not incidental—it’s Jesus claiming to be the one who restores and redefines Israel around Himself.
And here’s the key: Jesus is the faithful Israelite. He does what Israel failed to do. He keeps the covenant perfectly, walks in radical obedience, and fulfills Israel’s mission. He is the true Israel (see Matthew 2:15 where Hosea’s words originally spoken about Israel—”out of Egypt I called my son”—are applied to Jesus).
This is why Paul will later say in Galatians 3:16 that the promises were given not to “seeds” (plural) but to one “seed,” who is Christ. In other words, the inheritance of Israel is fulfilled in Jesus—and only those who are “in Him” share in that inheritance. That phrase—”in Christ”—is the dominant identity marker for believers in the New Testament. If Jesus is the true Israel, then those united to Him (Jew or Gentile) are the true people of God.
This point becomes even clearer when we revisit God’s original promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” This statement is often lifted out of its covenantal context and applied to modern nations or political support for Israel. However, the Hebrew grammar and narrative context show that the promise was made to Abram himself (the singular “you” in Hebrew, ʾotkha), not to a future geopolitical nation. God’s intention was not to privilege one ethnic group above all others but to initiate a redemptive mission through one man and his descendants—a mission that would culminate in Christ. The blessing is vocational, not nationalistic. Abram is chosen in order to be a blessing, that through him “all the families of the earth will be blessed.”
The apostle Paul interprets this precisely in Galatians 3:16, identifying the “seed” (zeraʿ) of Abraham as Christ Himself. This means that the covenant promise—“I will bless those who bless you”—finds its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus. The “you” now applies to Abraham’s true heir, the Messiah. Those who bless Him—who honor, trust, and align themselves with Jesus—receive the blessing of God; those who reject Him cut themselves off from that blessing. In this way, the Abrahamic covenant points forward to Christ as the locus of divine favor. To bless Abraham’s seed is to embrace the redemptive mission of God revealed in Jesus, and through faith in Him, we become participants in that same blessing.
Paul says Abraham was justified before circumcision (Rom. 4), showing that faith, not ethnicity, is the marker of God’s covenant people. He adds in Romans 2:28–29 that a true Jew is one inwardly, whose heart is circumcised by the Spirit. And in Galatians 3:28 he writes: “There is neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Ephesians 2 expands this beautifully. Paul says that Jesus has broken down the dividing wall and made one new humanity—no longer Jew and Gentile, but one body. Peter echoes this in 1 Peter 2, where he applies all the covenant titles once reserved for Israel (royal priesthood, holy nation, people of God) to the church made up of both Jews and Gentiles.
Paul also uses the metaphor of an olive tree in Romans 11: some natural branches (ethnic Israelites) were broken off because of unbelief, and wild branches (Gentiles) were grafted in. But it’s one tree. There aren’t two peoples of God. There is one new covenant community—those who are in Christ. It’s not about replacing Israel, but about fulfillment—where Jews and Gentiles together form the one people of God in Christ.
This helps clarify what Paul means in Romans 11:26 when he says, “all Israel will be saved.” We don’t believe he’s referring to a future mass conversion of ethnic Jews or suggesting two separate salvation paths. Rather, he’s speaking of the fullness of God’s people: both believing Jews and Gentiles who are part of the one tree through faith in the Messiah. This fits with Paul’s logic throughout Romans and with his statement in Galatians 6:16 that the church is “the Israel of God.”
God has always worked through covenants—and those covenants are centered on trust and faithfulness, not ethnicity alone. From the beginning, covenant relationship with God required loyal love. Even under the Mosaic covenant, Israel’s inclusion was contingent on obedience and faithfulness to Yahweh (Deut 28). Being born into Israel didn’t guarantee blessing—relationship and trust did. (Israelites were never automatically “saved.”) If there was any sense of salvation in the Old Testament it would be under the same “qualifications” as in the New Testament. What God was asking and promising for the faithful doesn’t change from the Old Covenants to the New Covenant.
The New Testament affirms this. While many modern Jews are physical descendants of Abraham, Paul is clear that physical descent is not enough. In Romans 9:6–8, he writes:
“For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants… it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.”
Paul emphasizes that covenant identity is now grounded in faith—just as it was with Abraham. As he puts it in Galatians 3:7:
“Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.”
So when we speak of the “people of God” today, we are not referring to a physical nation-state or ethnic group. We are speaking of those “in Christ”—those joined to the faithful Israelite, Jesus.
The modern nation-state of Israel is not the covenant people of the Bible. -If this is a new consideration for you, you might consider reading this article. Most of its citizens do not follow the Mosaic covenant, and the majority have rejected Jesus as Messiah. According to the New Testament, that places them outside of the renewed covenant family—not because of their ancestry, but because God’s covenant has always been about faith.
This doesn’t mean God has abandoned ethnic Jews. Paul says in Romans 11 that he hopes some of his fellow Jews will be provoked to faith. And many Messianic Jews (Jewish believers in Jesus) are part of the body of Christ. But the boundary marker is no longer ethnicity or Torah observance—it is faith in Jesus.
All of this leads us to say: the true Israel (or Israelite) is Jesus. And those “in Him,” whether Jew or Gentile, are heirs to the promises, the calling, and the covenant. God is not partial (and never has been, even with Israel as many gentiles were welcome to join them, a mixed multitude – Hebrew and gentile – left Egypt in the Exodus becoming “Israel”, and some even found themselves in the lineage of Christ Himself) —He welcomes all who come to Him through Christ.
We also need to think about our family in Christ as those that are allegiant to the New Covenant calling rather than those that are nationalistically / inter-nationalistically aligned with groups that subtly “claim to be allied with God” but are not living out the Way of Jesus or bearing fruit for the Kingdom of Christ. There is only one kingdom of Christ, and you can’t serve two masters. For generations many have claimed to be part of Israel or want to be somehow grafted into salvation but haven’t followed the devotion that God has desired and look nothing like Jesus or act in a way worthy of bearing His image. Jesus seemed to paint this picture vividly and make this very clear in the sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
This is not replacement theology.1 God has not rejected Israel and replaced her with or even outside of the church. Rather, the church is the fulfillment of Israel’s story (and Adam and Eve’s story for that matter) —expanded to include all nations through union with Jesus, the faithful Israelite, this was the plan of redemption that “all nations”, or everyone was offerred from the beginning.The promises of God have not been scrapped or reassigned; they find their “yes and amen” in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). The covenant people of God have always been marked by faith and loyalty to Him—and in the new covenant, that means allegiance and devotion to Yahweh through Jesus accepting and claiming that victory and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit as a sign of the holy royal priesthood. Jew and Gentile together form the one new man, the reconstituted people of God.
written by Will Ryan Th.D. and Matt Mouzakis Th.D.
Replacement theology, doctrine holding that Christians have replaced the Jewish people as the chosen people of God or as the heirs of the divine-human covenant described in the Hebrew Bible. The theology is also referred to as supersessionism, in which Christianity is thought to have superseded Judaism. It is closely related to fulfillment theology, which holds that Christianity has fulfilled the divine promises signaled in the Hebrew Bible. These ideas appear to be suggested in some of the earliest Christian texts, such as writings of St. Paul the Apostle, and subsequent Christian theologians have strengthened the opposition of Judaism and Christianity in ways that have informed relations between Christians and Jews. In the 20th century many Christian theologians and even church doctrines replaced replacement theology with more-nuanced or inclusive models that support more-amicable interreligious relations.
When you harmonize the gospels, you likely come to the conclusion that Jesus called the disciples 3x. The last time He gets very specific and asks them to leave everything on the beach, don’t look back, stay with Me completely and “walk” completely with Me. In our modern Western world this first century calling to discipleship seems almost impossible. I have spent my whole life challenging myself and other people to this level of discipleship, and I am just about convinced that in modern America people just aren’t willing. I have found one exception… seminary training. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with all seminary experiences but at The King’s Commission (TKC) we believe that this is the closest pathway to what first century discipleship under Jesus would have looked like. Study daily, be mentored, read, listen, discuss, dive deep into a community that is likeminded to experience the full breadth (completeness) of Jesus and the Church.
What a time it must have been, when Jesus shared his words and heart with his disciples (students) for the three years of his earthly ministry! They saw his compassionate healings, marveled at his miraculous power, listened to his word, saw his glory (Matt. 17:1-13), were humbled by his servant-leadership (Matt. 20:25-28, John 13:1-20). We believe you can still experience that same feeling with Jesus through TKC.
Seminary is something similar to those three years with Jesus. In many ways, of course, it is different. Jesus didn’t need to teach his disciples how to read Hebrew and Greek. He didn’t need to teach them post-canonical church history, because at the time there wasn’t any. And although he didn’t give letter grades, he regularly evaluated their progress. TKC has sought to stay as true to this dynamic model as possible.
Discipleship is about commitment, not to a program or a pattern but to the person of Jesus Christ.
Perhaps one of the Western world modern challenges we face is to see seminary throughout the context of discipleship rather than simply education. Seminary is more than academic training; it is a spiritual journey. The Latin “seminarium” or “seedbed”—captures the deeper purpose: cultivating hearts that bear spiritual fruit. Seminary, properly pursued, fosters a “taproot” in believers—vertical depth before horizontal spread—so lives become steadier, more rooted, and more fruit-bearing.
A testimony from one of the students that Dr. Ryan has discipled and now is regularly involved with in local church ministry, Paul Lazzaroni:
My own seminary experience (Paul) shifted my perspective. The draw to a deeper understanding of the scriptures came simply from a hunger to know Christ more. After a previous failed attempt at a well-known Bible College, 7 years later I was invited to apply at seminary. It wasn’t until I handed in some of my first course work that my understanding of seminary began to shift from simply retaining information to spiritual transformation. My advisor challenged me not just to retain facts but to articulate why I believed what I believed. That invitation to integrate intellect and devotion opened a deeper adoration for Christ. Many Western educational systems emphasize information retention; seminary (like Hebraic Torah study) invites transformation, not mere accumulation of facts.
For me, this wasn’t just a different way of seeing education, this was a journey down a path that the early disciples took with Jesus.
Hebraic culture treated study as a spiritual discipline linked to life and covenant faithfulness. Torah study functioned as devotion and formation, shaping how people lived before the LORD. From Eden through Sinai to Jesus, Scripture consistently calls for faithful allegiance expressed in obedience and transformed hearts. The word seminary itself is not nearly as old as the scriptures, but the heart behind the journey through seminary ties directly into the first and greatest commandment of Jesus “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ Mat 22:37
The word seminary (seminarium) means “seed bed”. Even our word semen finds its origins here. Semen without an egg to fertilize is a source of life that is seeking a host. Humankind is designed to replicate the source of life that heals, that restores, and that multiplies that which gives life, but the spirit of God needs a seed bed and Jesus himself consistently goes back to talking about the heart of the matter as though this is the seed bed of the human being.
Paul’s example in the New Testament reinforces this same type of spiritual journey. Despite his rigorous education as Saul, his encounter with Christ began a multi-year (14) process of spiritual formation (Acts 9; Galatians 1). Conversion was a beginning that required unlearning, relearning, and sustained growth. Seminary can be that structured season of deepening, where encounter and study mature into faithful living.
Over centuries, what ought to be a life-changing journey of spiritual study has sometimes become a path to prestige, income, or institutional advancement. From the establishment of the early church, there has been a slow evolution away from this type of devotion towards educational advancement. In the 15th and 16thcentury, the church experienced a large pivot deeper into the intellectual moving further away from the spiritual journey. This pivot began with a bold, spirit led move by Martin Luther to stand up against the hierarchical system that the Catholic Church had established, however much of what we still experience today is a war of the minds. The downfall of humanity began when we attempted to reason through all the things of life without the spirit of God. In doing so, we give up is the divine journey with Jesus himself as the teacher. When theological training serves personal gain rather than formation, the church loses its capacity to cultivate compassionate, faithful leaders—gardeners rather than dictators. Seminary must resist reducing theology to a résumé item; it should invite humility, compassion, and a lifelong devotion to learning and obedience.
For those of us who have had simply one encounter with Jesus, we know that it was a profound spiritual moment. My prayer would be that there was a flame that was lit. If you have yet to do so, seek out the fan that ignites that flame. Over the centuries, what was meant to be the most incredible journey of our lives by means of study, has transformed into hierarchical astuteness for the advancement of primarily worldly pursuits. This transformation of higher education has led to the creation of many learning systems that operate without spiritual context and in my opinion simultaneously void the presence and power of the spirit of God.
If seminary is understood as a seedbed for spiritual formation, it belongs to any disciple who wants to deepen devotion, understanding, and faithful practice—not only to those who pursue clerical office. It equips Christians to study Scripture faithfully (hermeneutics and exegesis), to integrate head and heart, and to live a long-haul obedience that reflects covenant faithfulness. This is the direct invitation from Jesus, the ancient of days, the word become flesh, the author and perfecter of life. Let us not waste our eternal invitation to follow in the dust of him. I pray the path of Yahweh draws many into this kind of lifelong study and devotion.
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: Ecclesiastes 3:1 NIV
Whenever I read Ecclesiastes, I can’t help but to start humming “Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is a Season)”, a song written by Pete Seeger in the late 1950s. The lyrics are adapted nearly word-for-word from the English King James Version of Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. In the U.S., the song holds distinction as the number one hit with the oldest lyrics. I sometimes Joke that Seeger got more people to memorize scripture than any pastor in history. However, you remember it, at some point you have likely contemplated the questions it raises. Although I am sure you have hummed the tune, too many people go through life without ever stopping to “really” ponder a very simple question, “what connection do you have to Jesus and His kingdom and what should that mean to you in this life?” That is the question Ecclesiastes raises to their audience and is as relevant 2500 years later, today – as it was the day it was written.
I am often perplexed by busy western culture people. There seems to be a conundrum of life that might have us too busy to simply stop and think through life or perhaps enable those thoughts into life-change. Those that have learned to stop and smell the roses have often been met with innumerable blessing. Different people react to different things and perhaps for you it is a song, or a movie, a passing of a loved one, or tragedy that has challenged you to stop and consider some of the more philosophical questions of life and reconsider what means most to us.
Mircea Eliade was a Romanian philosopher, and professor at the University of Chicago who became one of the most influential scholars of religion of the 20th century and interpreter of religious experience, he established paradigms in religious studies that persist to this day. He helped us recognize the “myth of eternal return” in the ancient world. The idea that every culture has had some kind of circle of life (as Disney later adopted it). From the Aztecs 27,000 year cycle, to the Hebraic 50 years of Jubilee year, including every seven years a sabbatical year, most cultures have recognized some cycle of life. In our culture New Years is a day of rethinking the past and taking on a resolution to do better in the coming year. In some way shape or form, I think everyone has considered the notion of re-examining their life cycles with the hopes to take action to a better way of life.
There is a relational connection of words in the New Testament that are translated as belief, faith, and hope, and what they all have in common is the notion of reliance, confidence, and trust. It is trust that puts you in contact with God so you can draw upon his unlimited and inexhaustible character. Unfortunately, many folks have their faith lined up in such a way that they do not need to rely on God. They do not need to trust God. They have a proper faith in terms of what they need to believe to go to heaven when they die, but they hope that God is never going to put them in a position of needing to actually trust him before they go there. It is this sort of “grappling” or “wrestling” in our faith that often brings us to a better sense of life.
Jon Gibson has uncovered something beautifully for us. As we reflect, remember, resolve and contemplate things more significant in this life, I am betting that we have seen seasons and have hopefully travelled to a better place of life through these journeys. But perhaps the best is yet to come for you. Perhaps there is something more going on in this life. Maybe there is a sense of orchestration in the ordinary that has led us to beautiful places even in the messiness or busyness of our modern life cycles. Most of us wouldn’t choose the courses of our past but we also wouldn’t choose to remove them from our lives. That seems to be an ontological fact of existence that we have in common. We are on a sentient journey. Jon tells story after story that you will find yourself not only deeply engaged with, but then turning your thoughts inward to consider your own journey and be shepherded to a better understanding of God’s majestic and far-reaching love, grace, and compassion.
What about you? Have you ever wondered about the greater questions of your faith? What about relationship dynamics and how they are influenced by God? Have you thought about legacy and the little things that point to the greater aspects of your spiritual person? What about taking the time to work through some if these thoughts, a mind retreat that engages action. In the big picture, if you are part of God’s family, we are all part of a return to Eden. But maybe that is less about heaven and more about your choices today. There is still time for God to being Heaven to earth through you. I think you will find that this book might be just what you need to start moving towards these feelings in your life.
I pray that in the pages of this masterful piece that you will find peace, comfort, and a sense of direction in the fact that somehow God is working out His plan within the pages of your life journey. Behind it all is His invisible hand. That’s comforting. Perhaps in the tears and fears, joy and grief, success and failure, helping and hurting; we will understand the immense love that Jon has so beautifully given us through his connections to Jesus. I pray that on this journey you may be captivated by these seasons and find a sense of peace but also action.
“The more beauty of God you capture today in your heart today, the greater the beauty you will find in your next season.” Don’t cast your seasons to the wind until you have grabbed hold of its beauty and set it in your heart for eternity.
Dr. Will Ryan
President of the King’s Commission School of Divinity
_____________________________________________
This article is intended to be a catalyst to Jon Gibson’s book “HERE AND NOW” to be released in 2026.
For the more “scholarly “academic” version of this article CLICK HERE.
What does it look like to give all of yourself to Jesus?
Hebrews 13:5 – Let your way of life be free from the love of money, being content with what you have, for He Himself has said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.”
DISCUSSION QUESTION: How much do you give to the Lord?
In the classic Old Testament Hebraic mindset the answer should be, “all that you have been given.” In other words, everything is the Lord’s and should be given back to Him. You have simply been entrusted to the “assets” of the kingdom for a short time. This is the circular dance of grace. (Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament by David A. DeSilva)
DISCUSSION QUESTION: If anyone from the group understands the dance of grace based on patronage please explain it to your group. This can be found in my book “This is the way to covenant community” on Page 161.
In our western thinking this is likely where we get the original audience’s interpretation of Biblical giving wrong… thinking that God just requires a tithe (confused with OT passages), or that there are no strings attached to Grace.
Grace is free but it also might have some strings attached. To be clear, Grace is totally free, but if you’re going to follow the Lord then you should follow the Lord with all that you are and have been given and freely give back all that you are and have been endowed with- which to some sounds like attached strings.
To most Americans the idea that God wants everything doesn’t sit very well. What would alter calls sound like if we told people the whole story before we asked them to put their hand up! It even becomes more uncomfortable as Christian Americans when you ask somebody if they love money. Nearly every American does. Christian Americans are in a little bit of a wrestling match because they want to proclaim that they don’t love money; yet the giant mortgages, lifelong debt, and working around the clock every week say otherwise. It sure looks like we all love money, and that’s actually the implication of I Timothy 6:10.
The word “love of money” is philarguros, literally, “a friend of silver.” This is a Greek verb that was used in the scriptural context to describe brothers and sisters of one body (which we like to call the church in present day language -that’s up for argument though.) Today, it would seem that money is root of more church problems and family dynamics than anything else I can think of. That’s why TOV doesn’t want much to do with it. It didn’t seem like Jesus wanted much to do with money and His version of first century “church” didn’t either. Have you ever considered the idea that Judas was the money keeper and the one-time Jesus was asked to pay for something it didn’t come from that bag, but from coins out of a fish his Father provided? What could that imply? Jesus didn’t own a church building but occasionally visited the temple which He does refer to as His father’s house.
Essentially the Hebraic way of living is that your complete life is a gift. This gift is a reciprocal dance mirroring what God has given you. Total humility, complete giving back of what you have been given, and utter devotion to your Father.
In the hands of the follower of the Way, contentment is a sign of trust in the grace and mercy of God. From the biblical point of view, the only reason a man or woman can entertain contentment is because God is good. His provision is sufficient. Greed leads away from Him and towards the love of things of the world separating us from the Love of Christ.
Is the love of money or money itself the root of evil? I don’t really think it matters… what matters is that God wants all of us to mirror all of what God has given us. And from the biblical authors mindset money had very little to do with any of that kind of thinking. It is the posture of the heart.
DISCUSSION QUESTION: How does God view your money? Does He even want it? Is the Money the World’s? But don’t we need money? Is it a “necessary evil?” of the world? How does it belong in a Jesus kingdom?
DISCUSSION QUESTION: We often say, TOV isn’t looking for a tithe. Discuss why a more Biblical perspective isn’t centered around “money or serving” but on deeper devotion of your “whole” person.
TOV ACTION NEEDS FOR YOUR DISCUSSION:
BECOME A MONTHLY “PATRON” PARTNER – Discuss how this mindset is different than a tithe
Sometimes we don’t give much to the donation boxes and it is hard to bless people when need arises. We want to bless generously. Consider gifting monthly so that we can buy people groceries, feed the hungry & homeless, and take a financial strain off a family for a season. There aren’t any tov salaries, mortgage payments or utilities to pay… all of your giving goes right to an ACTS 2 need. Together we can make a better kingdom investment. Right now We want to buy a car for another anonymous family and need $2500 that we don’t have.
We need car donations; we have a mechanic that will fix things. And we can give away these cars or sell them on the marketplace. If you know of someone selling a car ask them to donate it.
Giving: You don’t need to “make time or space” for God if all of your time, treasure and talents (sacred space) are His. In the same regard, you don’t need to consider giving a percentage of your financial resources if you are of the mindset that it is all His and you are merely the Spirit led steward of it.
Some have chosen to underwrite the few costs we have as “patron” partners. If you would like to dedicate a regular monthly amount, please do so here:
If you read my article earlier this month on Demons, you will know that I lean somewhere close to Walton in my views of demonology but still gravitate towards a “fall” of spiritual beings, which Walton would not describe in that sense. Walton points out that the bible doesn’t specifically use the word “fall” and Adam and Eve don’t actually “fall” in the sense of being cast out or demoted. I think he has made some great points to this regard, and I completely agree. In our original sin x44 series we brought out many of these points. He would then make the point that the bible actually never says that any of the spiritual being’s “fall” either. In my mind that one is a bit more controversial and where I slightly see things differently. I see a Deuteronomy 32 (Heiser) worldview in a sense of several other “falls” primarily concerned with spiritual beings which also involves human beings.
As a precursor to this conversation, I don’t necessarily like the term “fall” to describe Adam and Eve (as well as the serpent’s) banishment from the garden for many reasons, but I get the terminology traditionally applied. I do however see spiritual beings “falling” in the sense that they were created by the hand of God and are no longer aligned with Him in the heavenly cosmos. Therefore, I am ok with calling this a “dual fall” as people traditionally would understand it, to describe the free will intention of being’s pursuit away from God. In this sense we might think of it as God being high in the heavens, and the things of the world being low in an earthly realm. You might even describe a third realm as something associated with an underworld. In that sense, I am fine using the traditional term “fall” to describe what has happened to distance beings further from God’s sacred space. Even Walton titles a chapter “the fall” in his latest book simply because people know what we are referring to when we use the term.
DECONSTRUCTION: The Bible mentions Satan and spiritual beings, but it doesn’t actually give us much, and we likely conclude that we simply don’t have all those answers here. We don’t know what all the spiritual beings are, where they are now, and what has happened and will happen to them. We don’t have that story. What we do have is a different story about God’s covenant love to us that includes a few interesting things about spiritual beings along the way. What does the Bible give us in order to influence or make a faithful deduction from? We have a story of God’s unyielding covenant plan for us, the rest might be cloaked. 1
It is a fantastic read. One of my all-time favorites.
To be clear, the book explores a lot of areas that I don’t address here. This article is meant to address one part of the book, – the fall, which has been a personal interest of mine most of my life. In our interview we also approach theses subject matters:
Genesis 1: order and function
Previous material overview
New explorations in the first creation account
What is each day about?
Image of God- what is it about?
Creation out of nothing?
Genesis 1: Cosmic temple and rest
Previous material overview
Spreading order vs Spreading sacred space
Ruling vs relaxing on the 7th day
7 day inauguration?
Literary vs. Chronology
what does this means for human priesthood?
Genesis 2: The Garden and Trees
Previous material overview
Should we consider the garden to be a pristine paradise?
Should we think that we are headed back to eden (Revelation does have some parallels to the Gen 2 account)
Genesis 2: Adam and Eve
Previous material overview
Nakedness and the clothing of flesh
What does it mean that they are archetypes? Does this mean they were not “real”?
Humans created immortal?
Were they “perfect”?
Genesis 3: The Fall
Previous material overview
Serpent- How should we understand his role?
Death before the fall?
Is the origin of sin the focus of Gen 3? Are Adam and Eve being punished for sin?
Romans 5- How is Paul using the Gen 3 account there?
Genesis 3: The Pronouncement
What is going on in Gen 3:16?
Should we consider it messianic?
Why the guardian with the sword?
Genesis and science (we actually didn’t get into this because we have discussed it with him several other times in other interviews.)
Previous material overview
What are some of your new explorations in this area?
Is the Bible compatible with evolutionary models (godless models)?
If I have learned one thing from John over the years, it is to approach the interpretation of scripture more faithfully. This one is a lifelong endeavor of joy, and I am still learning! He starts out his latest work similar to his other works giving a methodology to his study, but in this case, he denotes over 50 pages to it rather than just a few. I won’t do that here (but I love what he does in the book to teach a better framework before he launches into it.), I do think we need to set the table slightly here before we start this discussion as well. Some think Walton is controversial. I don’t. As you read this article you are going to find that I nearly completely agree with him, especially in a purely exegetical sense, however – I desire to make more ontological, philosophical, and theological deductions than he might be willing to do. I will say that I think those that find him controversial fall into three camps. 1.) They want to be traditional and feel they are “standing strong.” I don’t have a lot of room for this take on the Bible. Essentially it is those that are willing to put tradition over the exegesis of the text. 2.) You don’t really have sound hermeneutics; you don’t understand the parameters. I think there is a good deal of this. People that don’t have sound framework or a good theological lens of the Bible. They don’t have the Bible in harmony. 3.) They just want a debate. I have some good friends in apologetics but honestly, I can’t stand the hierarchical “want to prove something” debating within primarily the evangelical circles. I think we need to get back to the edification of the church through a positive Mars Hill style teaching. Walton is very good here. I think there are 2-3 theologians that are ahead of their time that we will be reading in 100 years (such as we do with CS Lewis) and Walton might very well be the best we have.
Genesis 3 and the fall is difficult to interpret for many reasons. One of which is because you first might need to interpret Genesis 1 & 2 and decide whether you land in the recursive or sequential camp, believe it or not there will be implications along the way. It is also quite interesting because we have the Adam and Eve narrative in Genesis 3 and from that point on, we never hear anything else about it in the rest of the OT, and barely in the new. Chapter 3 is also sometimes interpreted under a poetic lens which might belong to a speculative type of wisdom literature that questions the paradoxes and harsh realities of life. This characterization is determined by the narrative’s format, settings, and the plot. The form of Genesis 3 is also shaped by its vocabulary, making use of various puns and double entendres.2 Furthermore, the Hebrew of a few words really does matter, and I would argue that we can’t arrive at an exact meaning for many reasons. The serpent, is identified in Genesis 3:1 as an animal that was more crafty than any other animal made by God.3 The Hebrew arum עָר֔וּם (Gen 3:1), is traditionally translated “crafty/shrewd” but could be connected linguistically with Genesis 2:25 עָרוֹם (arom) sharing the same root word.4 In this sense, traditionally the text has been read with a connotation of mental “nakedness” (innocence), yielding a more direct antonym for “shrewd” and heightening the irony. Then to complicate matters further, you have the realization that these words in the older Hebrew had no vowel signs which could render them to be understood slightly differently. Some might say this becomes a study of Philology. The Masoretic Texts and LXX are useful to fix meanings of terms and expressions, but they also are not the Gospel. I spend a lot of time describing contranym language in the ancient texts in blogs here so if you are a regular x44 watcher/reader, you will be tracking. Finally, if we are reading the narrative as if it intended to primarily communicate the origin of sin, I would question your doctrinal premises. All this said, I still believe we can come to a faithful “take away” of the text.
The serpent as the challenger
Was the spiritual being (serpent) in the Garden of Eden Satan? Of course, tradition and extra biblical sources tell us that, but do we really get that from the pages of scripture? The Bible doesn’t give us that in the same regard that it doesn’t tell us that the challenger in Job is Satan. If you believe either of those it would be a deduction from somewhere else, the text itself doesn’t render those takeaways. Walton calls the serpent a chaos creature that he doesn’t frame as evil. He says, “The serpent never suggests that they should eat the fruit, though by questioning what reasons they have for not doings so, it leads them (Adam and Eve) in that Direction… (the serpent) serves in the role of catalyst. It should not be identified as a tempter, nor should it should not be considered inherently evil. Certainly, it should not be seen as an evil force already in the world. “5 So, I agree with most of what Walton says here. We have a conundrum that has to be addressed. We both agree for numerous reasons that the serpent can’t be evil and be in the garden. I will spend more time on this later, but in my opinion, allowing an “evil” snake in a sacred garden wouldn’t align with God’s order. This leaves three options. The first is Walton’s option – It isn’t evil it is just a chaos “monster.” The second option would be understanding it as dual fall happening together (my view) – the serpent is falling as he is “tempting” Adam and Eve. The third view is the traditional view which doesn’t work in my opinion (but I will spend some time on it further on) – The snake is already evil and somehow gains access to the garden. As we explore these three options, the question hinging on this then is, “was the snake displaying sinful (The Greek term for sin “hamartano” (ἁμαρτάνω) – “to miss the mark”) or evil action? I agree that Adam and Eve are to blame for their own decisions (neither I, nor Walton, or Heiser would agree with any theory close to original sin or total depravity here, we are only responsible for our own actions). Is the snake also acting in free will in a way that (using the Bible’s own definition) – would be missing the mark for a free will thinking spiritual being? I would say traditionally the snake has always been portrayed as cunning and I would agree. It is also interesting (but I agree with Walton, we aren’t given an exegetical answer here) that the snake is portrayed as a challenger which is also representative of the challenger in the book of job. The question that will define this is whether or we can interpret the text to indicate that the free will serpent had “evil” intention.
The Challenger of Job
X44 did a long video series on the book of Job. Is the challenger of Job a.) the Satan of the NT and/or b.) the same spiritual being as the snake in the garden? We don’t know the answer to this directly from scripture. We know that the “challenger” of job is seemingly involved at a divine court or council meeting6, but the genre7 of the text would also come into play, as well as the timing as we make an educated assessment.
The language of the Book of Job, combining post Babylonian Hebrew and Aramaic influences, indicates it was composed during the Persian period (540–330 BCE), with the poet using Hebrew in a learned, literary manner.8 Although controversial, the story of Job could take place much much earlier and be handed down orally over generations. If you haven’t learned this yet, our lens of theology on a particular subject is influenced by other personal views of theology in regard to other subjects. Our theology needs to fit from one framework to another and be in harmony. The difficulty with rendering the challenger of Job as the NT Satan figure is that either has him in cahoots with God after the garden (which most people can’t -and rightly shouldn’t -theologically accept according to the order and character of God). Or that leaves you either saying it simply isn’t Satan, or we don’t know (certainly seems like the simplest choice without much in stake), or it is Satan, and the story takes place before the garden banishment, which you might be surprised to hear is my view. I go with the simple we don’t know here but also would suggest that if we are going to start guessing I lean towards the challenger of Job as the NT Satan figure. But this becomes very complicated.
Adam was the first man, but the Bible doesn’t say Eve was the first woman, in fact quite contrary, it says there were no other suitable partners. I am sure you have also heard stories of a first spirit wife named Lilith. The implication is there were other woman and thus other people. In other words, we have the story of Adam and Eve in the mountain high cosmic temple garden (that I believe were functioning as the first priests) but you also have the rest of humanity in lower earth (notice the Tolkien language). At first you will challenge me on this, but the more you think about it the more you are going to find that theologically the view makes the most reconciliation or harmony of the texts. This view then would have the challenger of job playing a role in the divine council, then doing something similar in the garden. This is when you could still reconcile Walton’s view. The challenger might not be inherently evil, but just positionally fulfilling his role or function in the divine council as a challenger and do so in the garden similarly to what he did in the book of Job. But I have to “question that,” there are too many things that don’t align.
The Challenger (serpent) in the garden missed the mark
I believe the serpent “falls” in the garden which then sets the tone for the other spiritual beings to follow suit.
Genesis 3:2-4: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
I am going to land more traditionally lining up with the way people have thought about this text largely over the last 3000+ years. In Genesis 3:4, the serpent’s statement, “Ye shall not surely die,” plainly read seems like an act of deception. This declaration directly contradicts God’s warning, suggesting that disobedience would not lead to death, which sets the stage for Eve’s disobedience and the subsequent “fall” from a life-giving provisional hand and tree of grace. The serpent’s words create doubt and lead to Eve’s temptation. I would say that this is where the serpent crosses the line and thus “falls.” If you have deconstructed enough to still be with me, then continue the line of logic – the snake whose vocation was to challenge is then kicked out of the garden, but the Bible doesn’t say this again, it has to be deduced (but that’s ok, that is part of theology). However, don’t get me wrong, the banishment was similar to Adam and Eve’s. I don’t see the snake actually losing his function completely because he was off the mark, neither did Adam and Eve as Walton points out. I see the “fall” in both cases then happening as archetype’s of what is to come. Both the snake and Adam and Eve make their own choices to be separated. The garden story then simply describes the beginning of “the fall” or the handing over to their decisions/desires, both of which are to seize wisdom for themselves and become like God.9 Could the job story be chronologically slightly after this? Maybe but it doesn’t fit the “fall” narrative as well. I see the deception of the snake being met with perhaps a demotion of the heavenlies (cast down to lower earth to crawl on its belly.) The snake is clearly cursed. This movement by God then has the snake feeling like he was wrongly demoted (as he might argue he was just playing his kingdom given role of a challenger) and eventually aligns other spiritual beings that follow him “down” likely becoming his “minions.” (Although I will admit, this notion is lacking exegetically as well, I will get to that.) From there perhaps the challenger of job and serpent seems to arise as the leader of the cosmic bad guys in the second temple period and New Testament. Nearly all of the intertestamental apocalypse literature seems to point this way. If they had that in mind, perhaps we should too, but it also doesn’t make it true. Of course, your view of inerrancy and the canon is going to influence thoughts here as well as you make your own decisions.
Do we get the answer in Hebrew? That is a great question, and it is really complicated. As I described in the inro the Hebrew is rather difficult to make any kind of deduction from in my opinion. Is there any semantic link or word play going on with nakedness or a sense of transparency? Could you interpret in Gen 2:25, as an adjective (in a ‘static’ mode) ‘naked’ – without a veil (seen differently from many other beasts that are covered or veiled by hair, bristle, quills, spines, plates)? In this sense it could be explained that the Serpent (spiritual being) claimed to be a “being without a (mental) veil”, and capable, too – in this state – to help others to remove the “veil from their mind’s eyes”. Of course that denotes ill intentions. And in this capacity the Serpent presented himself to Eve, claiming to be a revealer to her, since her ‘closed eyes’ were not capable to ‘see’ (Gen 3:5, 7). In the matter we are discussing (orumim/orum) we are facing with a kind of ‘semantic oscillation’, where two terms could be derived by the same conceptual root.
It is true that the Hebrew word and phrasing could be interpreted without a negative or evil intention – “missing the mark” connotation. For instance, in the ten times the word arum was used in the book of Proverbs, it pointed towards a positive attribute. To be arum was a good thing, and it was always directly compared to a naive (peh’ti) person or a fool (eh’wil). You could say that if we take the Proverb’s use of the word arum and apply it to the Genesis account, we can see that the snake was the crafty prudent character and humanity was the fool. To take this notion one step further, this specific root can only be found (arguably) in a negative connotation in one other place in the Bible, Job 5:12. In other words out of 11 occurrences 9 seem positive and two could be interpreted as negative. I always found it interesting that Jesus took the concept of the shrewd serpent and applied it to his own disciples in Matthew 10:16-20. So coming back to the text, I would argue that the word arum could go either way here, so then we go back to textures of interpretation – what does the context give us? Do we get the answer in 3:14:
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
As I allude to earlier, the use of the word “curse” is key here. Many have made the point that God doesn’t curse Adam and Eve, but the serpent is cursed by God. What does that tell you? We don’t have that answer but I have to say the text certainly infers something negative in the curse. I have a difficult time reading this (even after much deconstruction and unbiased training) to read it without a negative connotation. (i.e. does God curse chaos monsters?)
Could a fallen or “evil” Satan exist in the garden?
Okay, what about the traditional view—could this have been an evil (already fallen) Satan who showed up in the garden to tempt Eve? There are a number of problems with this that I am not convinced can be reconciled within a solid hermeneutical approach to the text. Perhaps the only way this works in a traditional sense would be to say that the serpent was created good but fell before the garden story. Some literalists lean toward this view, suggesting that Satan was essentially “possessing” a snake. Therefore, when it ‘spoke’—which you might argue a snake cannot do—it was Satan speaking through it as an already fallen, evil being.
The difficulty, then, is how does an evil snake get into a sacred garden? God’s order seems to be disrupted, but the question is whether this could be possible. Everything in the garden was good, except Satan, and perhaps the (could you say) “evil” of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In this view, God did not create evil; evil is the very antithesis of God. But regardless of one’s view, there is a fruit in the garden referred to as “evil.” That seems to imply some conception of evil existing in the garden.
Now, we need to address the translation issue here. The Hebrew word for “evil” in Genesis is ra’ (רַע). However, ra’ does not inherently mean “evil” in the sense of a malevolent force or being. It is more accurately translated as “bad,” “disorder,” or “calamity.” The concept of “evil” as a metaphysical, moral entity distinct from God is not necessarily what is being communicated here. Instead, ra’ can refer to anything that is not aligned with tov (goodness/order), but it is not necessarily the ontological evil that later Christian theology would define.
In the context of the garden, the focus is on “the knowledge of good (tov) and ra’.” The emphasis is not on the intrinsic evil of the tree but on the human choice to engage with ra’—to experience and define for themselves what is good and what is not. It’s about autonomy, the desire to determine what is good and what is bad apart from God’s established order.
We see the consequences of choosing ra’ in Genesis 6:5, where it says, “The LORD saw that the wickedness (ra’) of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil (ra’) continually.” The ra’ in Genesis 6:5 is not some inherent, ontological evil but the chaotic, disordered state that humanity descended into after choosing ra’ in the garden. It is a natural progression—a consequence of rejecting tov and embracing autonomy.
In Romans 1:24-28, Paul describes a similar dynamic, where God “hands them over” to their desires. God is not directly causing evil but allowing humanity to experience the consequences of choosing ra’ over tov. In this way, God’s “wrath” is not active punishment but a passive allowance for people to reap the consequences of their choices. This same dynamic is at play in the garden. God is not bringing evil into the garden; rather, He is allowing Adam and Eve the freedom to choose, to step outside of His tov order, and thus enter a state of ra’.
For instance, in Isaiah 45:7, God says, “I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create calamity (ra’).” Here, ra’ is not moral evil but calamity or disorder brought as a consequence. And “make” and “create” are two different words in hebrew where God makes shalom and “orders” (br’) ra’. Similarly, in Amos 3:6, it says, “When disaster (ra’) comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?” Again, the emphasis is not on moral evil but on God allowing or ordaining calamity as a form of judgment or consequence.
Therefore, the ra’ in the garden is not an ontological evil but the potential for chaos, disorder, and calamity—a choice that leads to a state of ra’, as seen in Genesis 6:5. When humanity chooses to step outside of God’s good order, what remains is ra’—a state of disorder and chaos. This is not about a fallen Satan bringing ontological evil into a sacred space but about humanity’s choice to step outside of God’s established order and thus bring ra’ into God’s good creation.
Thus, the serpent, then, functions as a tempter, not a cosmic evil being, leading humanity to embrace ra’ as the absence of tov, aligning with the pattern seen throughout the biblical narrative of God “handing them over” to the consequences of their choices. This interpretation avoids the theological problem of making God the author of evil while still accounting for the serpent’s role in the narrative.
But getting back to the traditional view and consideration of it; through the snake, if you can reconcile evil being allowed in the sacred garden then perhaps Satan falling early (possibly before the creation) and showing up in the garden can work for you. But again, the traditional interpretation hinges on the assumption that the serpent represents a pre-fallen Satan who is already evil. However, as discussed earlier, the Hebrew concept of ra’ is not inherently “evil” as in a cosmic, malevolent force. It is more accurately understood as disorder, calamity, or badness—essentially a deviation from tov (goodness/order). This nuance becomes crucial when considering the nature of the serpent and the so-called “evil” present in the garden.
If we accept that ra’ in Genesis does not inherently indicate a cosmic evil but rather the potential for disorder and chaos, then the serpent may not be some intrinsically evil being but rather a creature operating within the framework of ra’—a tempter, yes, but not a pre-fallen Satan in the classic sense. The text itself does not state that the serpent was Satan, nor that Satan was a fallen being at this point.
Satan put the words in Eve’s mind that caused or gave way for her to make a decision to disobey God’s command. That warranted banishment by God to both Eve and the snake, who traditionally is viewed as Satan, an instrument of evil. But here, we run into further problems. If we adopt the traditional view that Satan had already fallen, we are left with the question of how a fallen, evil being could be allowed into the sacred garden—a space characterized by the presence of God’s tov order.
Some might say that God “allows” Satan into the Garden similar to the book of Job, which could be seen as a test for Adam and Eve, giving them the choice to obey God’s command or succumb to temptation. Yet, in the Job narrative, Satan is depicted as a member of the divine council (Job 1:6-12), not a pre-fallen being operating as an evil entity. The Satan figure in Job is portrayed more as an accuser or tester, not the cosmic evil adversary developed in later Christian theology. Thus, to read Genesis 3 through the Job lens is problematic and potentially anachronistic.
I don’t see God operating with the enemy this way. To me, seeing God negotiating with the enemy is theologically problematic. If God is negotiating with a pre-fallen Satan to test humanity, this casts God in a complicit role in the introduction of ra’ (disorder) into the sacred space, making Him a participant in the very disorder He is meant to oppose.
Others wonder if by presenting the choice between obedience and disobedience, God established a framework for humans to exercise their moral agency or responsibility. But this still has God and Satan in cahoots. From a theological standpoint, some Reformed and Calvinist traditions suggest that God’s sovereignty encompasses even the activities of Satan, allowing Satan to enter the Garden as part of a divine test. However, this framework positions God as the author of evil, effectively undermining the character of God as wholly good and holy.
This interpretation also fails to account for the consistent biblical narrative that God is not the author of ra’ but rather the one who brings order from chaos (Genesis 1:1-3). To frame Satan as an already fallen being actively working with God in the garden disrupts this order and introduces theological inconsistencies.
All of this has us asking, did God “allow” a “fallen” Satan to tempt his sacred image bearers? Well, God certainly allows us to be tempted, as is clear in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 4:1; 1 Corinthians 10:13). But the context of Genesis 3 has a different feel. The serpent is depicted as a cunning creature, not as a cosmic enemy of God. There is no explicit indication that this serpent is Satan or that it is a fallen being acting in opposition to God’s order.
I am not sure the best theological plan has sacred space invaded by literally the most evil entity the world has ever known and God seemingly working with Him. Everything we read in the New Testament is contrary to this. Satan is depicted as the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), the “accuser of the brethren” (Revelation 12:10), and a “roaring lion” seeking to devour (1 Peter 5:8)—but these depictions are framed in a post-fall, post-Genesis context. The New Testament portrays Satan as having already been cast down, not as an evil entity roaming freely in God’s sacred space.
Did Satan’s place with God change later in the Old Testament? Could the “fall” have even been later when the extra-biblical material got so apocalyptic? Possibly. This is an option for a later fall, but again, it goes against the traditional view of an already evil, pre-fallen Satan in the Garden.
The real issue here is that the traditional view seems to require theological gymnastics that complicate the narrative and obscure the focus of Genesis 3. The narrative seems more concerned with humanity’s choice to step outside of God’s tov order and embrace ra’, not with the cosmic conflict between God and a fallen Satan. Therefore, to frame the serpent as an already fallen Satan may be to import later theological constructs into the Genesis text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself within its own ancient Near Eastern context.
When did Satan “Fall”
As we continue our last set of questions we then start to ask, when exactly did Satan and the other spirits fall? Before creation, during early Genesis, towards the end of the OT, or are they continuing to fall until the day of judgment? One of the more enigmatic verses in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells his disciples, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” -Luke 10:18. Hesier points out, perhaps the most common interpretation is that Jesus is seeing or remembering the original fall of Satan. This option makes little sense in context. Prior to the statement, Jesus had sent out the disciples to heal and preach that the kingdom of God had drawn near to them (Luke 10:1–9). They return amazed and excited by the fact that demons were subject to them in the name of Jesus (10:17). Jesus then says, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”10 Personally, I view this as an already not yet. It was a Christus Victor, at the cross, CS Lewis style regaining the keys over death victory. In this sense I think the words “like lightning from heaven” was a very clever word play of double proportion that Jesus seems quite well known for. The language style used by Luke (“I saw”) was apocalyptic in prophetic visions, especially in the book of Daniel (Dan 4:10; 7:2, 4, 6–7, 9, 11, 13, 21). But I also don’t see the final culmination of this until the second coming of Christ. Therefore, I see it as past (Satan falling seems to be how everyone else in that generation would have interpreted it) and yet to come. This fits my theology well in first understanding how the intended audience would have interpreted it, then applying it to the modern day “see it all” lens that we have for everything biblical. To sum it up, I agree with Walton that the Bible never actually describes or concretely gives us the details of a fall, but I think it is a logical and theological deduction. This conclusion seems obvious, since the New Testament identifies the serpent as Satan or the devil (Rev 12:9). The implication of seeing Eden through ancient Near Eastern eyes is that God was not the only divine being. God had created humankind as his imagers and tasked them with bringing the rest of the world outside Eden under control—in effect, expanding Eden through the rest of creation. God’s will was disrupted when an external supernatural tempter (I think challenger is a better word), acting (cunningly) autonomously against God’s wishes, succeeded in deceiving Eve.11
Satan in Ezekiel 28 & Isaiah 14
Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah 14:12-15 are pivotal passages often cited to support the traditional view that Satan was already a fallen, evil being by the time he appears in the garden of Eden. However, a closer examination of these texts, along with a more nuanced understanding of the Hebrew language and ancient Near Eastern context, suggests a different narrative. Rather than depicting a pre-creation fall of Satan, these texts situate the divine rebel’s fall within the context of pride and hubris connected to earthly rulers and their supernatural counterparts.
Both Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 are structured as mashal, a Hebrew term meaning a “comparative story” or “taunt.” The prophets are not merely describing historical kings but using these figures as representative echoes of the original deceiver in Eden. In both cases, the kings of Tyre and Babylon embody the characteristics and trajectory of the divine rebel in Genesis 3.
Isaiah 14:4 explicitly introduces the passage as a mashal against the king of Babylon. The text reads:
“You will take up this taunt (mashal) against the king of Babylon” (Isa 14:4).
The prophet is comparing the king’s pride and downfall to that of a celestial being who sought to elevate himself above the stars of God—a clear echo of the serpent’s desire to corrupt humanity’s allegiance to God in Genesis 3. This heavenly being in Isaiah 14 is depicted as seeking to ascend the divine council, placing himself above the other divine beings, only to be cast down to the earth (erets), the realm of the dead.
Similarly, in Ezekiel 28, the prophet uses the king of Tyre as a comparative figure. The king, adorned with precious stones and positioned as a guardian cherub, is described as being in Eden, the garden of God. The language is strikingly similar to descriptions of divine beings in other ancient Near Eastern texts, portraying this being as resplendent, powerful, and shining—an image associated with the divine council.
“You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone was your covering…
You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.” (Ezekiel 28:13-14)
The king’s pride and hubris are directly connected to the serpent’s role in Genesis 3, echoing the desire to elevate oneself above one’s appointed station, leading to downfall.
The kings of Tyre and Babylon, like the serpent and the first humans in Eden, chose ra’ over tov, disorder over divine order. The Hebrew word ra’ is frequently translated as “evil,” but its primary meaning is closer to “bad,” “disorder,” or “calamity.” In the garden narrative, Adam and Eve’s choice to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (tov and ra’) was not a choice between moral opposites but between divine order and chaos.
The same choice is portrayed in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. The king of Tyre’s exaltation to divine heights and his subsequent casting down is framed as a choice to pursue self-exaltation (ra’) over alignment with God’s order (tov). This choice mirrors the serpent’s enticement of Eve—to become “like gods,” knowing good and evil, a pursuit of autonomy apart from God’s appointed order.
In Isaiah 14, the king of Babylon is likened to helel ben shachar, the morning star. This term, later translated as Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate, refers to Venus, the celestial body that rises brilliantly in the morning but is quickly overtaken by the sun, symbolizing a being who seeks to ascend but is inevitably cast down.
“How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12)
The imagery here is not about Satan being named “Lucifer” but about the hubristic attempt to ascend to divine status, only to be brought low. The term Lucifer became associated with Satan through later Christian tradition, but the original context is a mashal, a comparative story about a celestial being seeking to usurp divine authority—a theme that resonates with the serpent’s ambition in Eden.
Adam and the Divine Rebel
Heiser’s critique of the Adam view is that it misreads the prophetic texts. In Genesis 3, Adam is not depicted as attempting to ascend to the divine council or exalt himself above the stars of God. Instead, he passively follows Eve in choosing ra’ over tov, effectively failing to uphold his divine vocation as an image-bearer.
In contrast, the divine rebel in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is characterized by active rebellion, pride, and the desire to ascend the divine council and claim divinity. The imagery of ascending to the mount of assembly (Isa 14:13) and walking among the fiery stones (Ezek 28:14) places this figure within the divine council, a realm Adam was never said to inhabit (though Eden was a mountain top garden- a divine council place).
The Rebel Spiritual Being and the Garden
In both prophetic texts, the hubris of thedivine rebel is the central theme. The king of Babylon, likened to the morning star, seeks to usurp divine authority, echoing the serpent’s enticement in Eden:
“You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly…
I will make myself like the Most High.’” (Isaiah 14:13-14)
This language mirrors the serpent’s enticement in Genesis 3:5, “You will be like gods.” The serpent’s offer was a lure to ascend beyond one’s station, to acquire wisdom apart from God’s ordained order. Thus, the divine rebel in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is not Adam, but a divine being who, like Adam, chose ra’ over tov—autonomy over submission, chaos over divine order.
By framing Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 as mashal, the prophets are not merely recounting historical events but drawing a comparative picture that connects the fall of earthly kings to the original divine rebel in Eden. The king of Tyre and the king of Babylon are embodying the traits of the serpent in Eden—choosing pride, self-exaltation, and rebellion against divine order.
This comparative approach underscores the consistency in biblical narrative. The fall in Eden was not an isolated event but part of a broader pattern of rebellion against divine order, echoing through earthly rulers and spiritual beings alike. The kings in Ezekiel and Isaiah are thus depicted as archetypes of the original deceiver, figures who, like the serpent, seek to exalt themselves above their appointed stations and are cast down as a consequence.
In this light, the prophetic use of mashal reinforces the connection between the garden narrative and the broader Deuteronomy 32 worldview, where human and spiritual rebellions are intertwined, illustrating how earthly kings align themselves with the fallen powers and perpetuate the same cycle of pride and destruction initiated in Eden.12
Does Revelation 12 talk about the fall of Satan and one-third of the Spiritual Beings?
In the Deuteronomy 32 worldview, we observe a series of pivotal dual falls involving both divine and human agents: the fall in Eden (Genesis 3), the transgressions of the sons of God in Genesis 6, and the divine disinheritance at Babel (Deuteronomy 32:8-9; Psalm 82). The question then arises: Is Revelation 12 depicting a fourth fall involving Satan and a third of the angels?
Many interpreters have traditionally viewed Revelation 12 as depicting a primordial rebellion occurring in Genesis 3, where Satan is thought to have taken a third of the angels with him in his fall. However, a close reading of the text reveals a different timing and context for the event. Rather than referring to an ancient, Edenic fall, Revelation 12 situates the conflict within the context of Christ’s first advent, aligning it with the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension of the Messiah.
The passage begins with the imagery of a woman clothed with the sun, representing Israel, giving birth to a male child “who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12:5). This is a direct allusion to the messianic prophecy of Psalm 2:8–9, a prophecy that concerns Christ’s rulership rather than a primeval angelic rebellion. The child is “caught up to God and to His throne,” an unmistakable reference to the ascension, not to any event in Eden.
Michael Heiser critiques the traditional interpretation, noting that there is no scriptural basis for locating Satan’s fall in Genesis 3. He writes:
“There isn’t a single verse in the entirety of Scripture that tells us (a) the original rebel sinned before the episode of Genesis 3, or (b) a third of the angels also fell either before humanity’s fall or at the time of that fall.” 13
Heiser further emphasizes that the timing of the conflict involving the third of the stars in Revelation 12 is explicitly linked to the incarnation and exaltation of Christ. This interpretation aligns with Daniel 8:10, where the stars represent faithful members of Israel and their suffering under hostile powers, rather than fallen angels.
Revelation 12:7–9 describes a heavenly conflict in which Michael and his angels expel the dragon and his host from heaven. This event is framed by the birth and exaltation of the Messiah, not by the events of Eden. John explicitly identifies the dragon as “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan” (Rev. 12:9), but he does not associate the casting down of the third of the stars with Genesis 3.
The chronological markers are unmistakable. The casting down of a third of the stars is connected directly to the birth, death, and ascension of Christ—not to a rebellion in Eden. Beale notes that the defeat of the dragon occurs through Christ’s resurrection and ascension, aligning this passage with the inauguration of the kingdom of God and the consequent expulsion of Satan and his host. 14
Moreover, Revelation 12:13–17 continues the narrative by focusing on the dragon’s pursuit of the woman and her offspring—those who “keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (v. 17). This further confirms the eschatological focus of the passage, centering on the Messiah’s mission and the ongoing conflict between Satan and the church rather than a primordial fall.
Thus, interpreting Revelation 12 as a description of a fall of angels in Genesis 3 is a misreading of the text. Instead, the passage situates the conflict firmly in the context of the first advent of Christ, emphasizing Satan’s defeat through the Messiah’s resurrection and enthronement—a defeat that inaugurates the kingdom of God and the dragon’s intensified assault on the followers of Christ. This view not only aligns with the internal chronology of Revelation but also maintains consistency with the broader Deuteronomy 32 worldview, where divine and human rebellions are framed within specific historical and eschatological contexts rather than a single, primeval fall.
So back to our options. Did Satan fall before creation? I don’t think so, it doesn’t make sense in the garden “fall” narrative. By the intertestamental period and the tempting of Jesus we clearly have a “fallen” Satan. We also have a D32 fallen world problem early in Genesis that seems impacted by “fallen” spiritual beings and likely Satan rising as the cosmic leader of the evil “fallen” spiritual forces by the NT; therefore, as I have made the case for – the clearest choice theologically lining up with the rest of the lens of the Bible is for a dual fall in the garden.
The other “fallen” spiritual beings
So, then what about the rest of them? Back to my article on demonology. We don’t really have clear answers here either. The NT certainly talks about demons. I will admit there isn’t much if anything biblically that ties Satan specifically to other “fallen” spiritual beings. Revelation 20:10 is our best and possibly only source: “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.” We also have Matthew 12:24 and Luke 11:15 also refer to Satan as the prince of demons, but that also could be interpreted a couple of different ways. But there is an inference I believe towards Satan being the leader of the cosmic fallen spirits at least by the time of the cross.
Conclusion
After working through all the options, I think you either need to sit back and agree with Walton that the Bible just doesn’t give us the answers. And I agree with Him. That is all we can concretely take away or say. If you decide to jump on the deducing train, you are going to have a wild ride, but hopefully I have given you some good framework for making a better theological choice.
This article was Written by Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Matt Mouzakis based in part on the foundational research of our latest book, PRINCIPALITIES, POWERS, AND ALLEGIANCES: Interpreting Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17, and Revelation 13 within a Deuteronomy 32 Worldview and research from our good friends Dr. John Walton, and the late Dr. Michael Heiser to whom we are both in deep gratitude towards.
WORKS CITED AND NOTES:
A good friend of mine likes to remind me of the traditional difference between deducing and deducting. Traditionally these words are rendered differently. “Deduce” refers to the process of reaching a logical conclusion or inference based on available information or evidence. Deduce is a transitive verb, related words are deduces, deduced, deducing, deductive, deductively and the noun form, deduction. It involves using reasoning or logical thinking to arrive at a particular deduction. “Deduct” means to subtract or take away an amount or value from a total. Deduct is a transitive verb, which is a verb that takes an object. Related words are deducts, deducted, deducting and the noun form deduction. Either can take the form of “deduction”. However, ARTHUR F. HOLMES made the point to the Evangelical Theological Society in his text, ORDINARY LANGUAGE ANALYSIS AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD that the terms become increasingly complicated in modern English, and specifically within theological applications, “deduct” finds a place in most biblical conversation, as exegetically you come to what the text offers to which you can deduce something logically, but then as you apply it towards modern application (such as life) you are making a “take away from the text” statement which could be more accurately described as something “deducted.” Holmes and many others since them have continued to make the point that in proper English “deduct” doesn’t simply apply to math but also theology. Languages evolve and take on different nuances. Induction is another conversation. ↩︎
The Hebraic Roots Bible’s footnote on Gen 3:1 states (bold is mine): “The word for ‘naked’ in verse 25 [of chapter 1] and the word for ‘cunning’ are derived from the same root word in Hebrew.” ↩︎
Edward L. Greenstein (2019). Job: A New Translation. Yale University Press. p. xxvii. ISBN9780300163766. Determining the time and place of the book’s composition is bound up with the nature of the book’s language. The Hebrew prose of the frame tale, notwithstanding many classic features, shows that it was composed in the post-Babylonian era (after 540 BC). The poetic core of the book is written in a highly literate and literary Hebrew, the eccentricities and occasional clumsiness of which suggest that Hebrew was a learned and not native language of the poet. The numerous words and grammatical shadings of Aramaic spread throughout the mainly Hebrew text of Job make a setting in the Persian era (approximately 540-330) fairly certain, for it was only in that period that Aramaic became a major language throughout the Levant. The poet depends on an audience that will pick up on subtle signs of Aramaic.↩︎
Wow! This is awesome! We are super excited for you! The heavens are rejoicing! You just made a decision to welcome Jesus as your King, and the Bibe says, He is LORD of your life now! That might sound a bit strange to you in our modern culture using terminology that is thousands of years old, but the meaning of who and what Jesus does in our lives for those that follow Him hasn’t changed. Making a decision to follow Him is the first step, the next step is to make that a public confession to the world. We do this through baptism. Baptism is an outward sign of the inner decision and declaration you have made to faithfully follow Jesus. Your local church would love to help guide you through this step. I would suggest looking for a solid non-denominational or mainstream denomination church. Hopefully that church was part of the process where you already decided to follow Jesus. Your pastor would love to talk you through this! We are praying for new confidence in your identity as you begin to walk boldly in the power and presence of Jesus who is in you. WE DECLARE FREEDOM!
From there we encourage you to start deepening your relationship with Jesus and His word (the Bible), this is usually “shepherded” by the body of Christ we call the church. This is actually the main thrust of the message of the Bible, to live in fellowship together in devotion to the Lord. The Bible describes it like this, “As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.” Colossians 2:6. Walking is a metaphor for intimate relationship. To better help you understand this idea, and the path that you are entering, read the beginning of this post right now, it is short, and sweet, and can be read in a couple of minutes.
Ok so now you might have a better idea of the way that God loves you and wants to have a deep relationship with you gathered around the community of Jesus. Together we represent the presence of Jesus to the world.
Next you should get into the word of God, the Bible!
Somehow you found your way here to Expedition 44. Expedition 44 is known for super deep theological Bible studies geared towards seminary students. You are certainly welcome to read all the articles here and watch videos, but it might be over your head right now… (but I guarantee we have videos and articles that will answer your TOUGH questions about God and Christianity if you have that need or desire. Just use the search bar to the right.) The good news is the basic message of Jesus is pretty simple! You have a lot to look forward to and it won’t take you long to get there! That is the best thing about this walk, it is super exciting and before you know it, you will be filled with joy & surrounded by a great community on your way to a transformed life getting to know Jesus. This process begins by joining a small group at your local church and a Bible study where people get transparent and are welcoming. Make a commitment ty to attend church regularly being immersed in whatever “events” they are offering. Next, the Bible Project is an awesome organization that is known for great theology through simple animated videos that everyone from children to adults can glean from. They are my favorite online site. This is a great resource to start learning about the Bible and its truths.
Make some time and start a prayer life! We are all really busy to be sure, but the addition of walking with Jesus to an already full schedule can be one of the largest obstacles to overcome in a new faith journey. We’ve got two suggestions that can really help. 1. Be intentional. Make a plan to set aside time in your schedule to meet with God. 2. Get practical. In the time you set aside, make use of tools to help you connect with God. In the church we have often called these “spiritual practices”. Find a Bible reading plan to work through perhaps on the Bible app. (The Bible project – above, also has a plan for this.) Learn to listen and speak with God through prayer. Setting aside time in and of itself is a spiritual practice called “sabbath” which helps us overturn the oppressive “busyness” in our lives in order to make way (sacred space) for Christ’s new rule and reign in a partnership with us. Through this you will start finding a new destiny and fulfillment for your life centered in Jesus.
The faith walk is exciting, fulfilling, and offers a lot of transformative qualities for your life, but Romans 12:12 reminds us to “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” In the years to come you will experience some spiritual highs and lows. But remember that God promises to be with you, He asks for one step at a time towards Him. You will still “Miss the mark” occasionally, but that DOESN’T invalidate the commitment and growth we’ve already experienced. Some areas in our lives are a long triathlon, not a sprint. When you asked Jesus to come into your life, He actually does that! His spirit is now indwelling you and will act as a spiritual helper with you. Romans 8:26 reminds us that the Spirit helps us in our weakness. Even when we do not know what to pray the Spirit Himself intercedes for us!
Maybe you are in a season of healing. Sometimes in Jesus this is miraculous and immediate, but sometimes it is a steady course. We wouldn’t go into a rehab where someone has had a decades long addiction, and when they come to Jesus, expect them to never struggle. If you stumble, let your pastor and/or discipleship partner know, and they will lovingly help you back up and continue the path before you hand in hand. That is what community in Jesus looks like. Jesus us here for you and the church is the physical hands and feet of Him in our lives.
Okay anything else? Here are some next steps for people that think more analytically…
Find a local church and introduce yourself to the host people or pastors letting them know you want to get involved and take the next steps of discipleship (this is an important word to use with them.)
Find a friend to help you walk through this. I would suggest entering into a relationship with someone that can help you on a weekly basis. A scheduled cup of coffee each week, phone calls and text messages are great! This helps you stay on track! If you don’t have a person like this, ask your pastor to help!
Build a solid foundation. Get in the word every day. The paragraph above will be great for you!
Next, start building Godly relationships. The community of Jesus is important and central to the faith journey. You don’t necessarily have to leave your old friends; but in some cases, you might consider particularly if they aren’t good influences in your life, each person’s situation is unique. We want to encourage you to start walking with people that will edify or build you up in your faith and are on a similar trajectory with Jesus. This decision should be an awesome new launch or maybe restart for your life. We hope you never look back!
Be discipled and start discipling! I bet your thinking wait how can I disciple? I don’t even know what that means yet! Just tell your story! Tell your family, your friends and those you’re meeting at church. Give a testimony as to what God is doing in you.
Start praying! Don’t know how? We can help, but it’s pretty simple! Just start talking to Jesus! He hears and you will be surprised at all the ways that He answers back!
Attend a three day renewal weekend. Ask us how!
If you need help, don’t be afraid to reach out to your local church. If you aren’t sure about any of this text us! We will help you! 2629031887 -Dr. Ryan or 2623524938 -Pastor Josh
This post was written by Dr. Will Ryan of the Tov Community with special thanks from a think tank of other contributors such as:
The most important story in history is the story of Jesus. Perhaps the most unique aspect of this story is that it has the power to significantly impact every person from the beginning of time until the end yet is also so counter cultural to humankind in the same timeless way. Very few Christians really understand the cross, the resurrection, and the ascension dynamics of the story even though they would all claim to have given their life to what it represents. That is strange to me. The other strange thing is that very few Christians can answer the question, “why did Jesus die on the cross for us?” or perhaps, “what did it accomplish?” This is called the atoning works of Christ and I will admit, it can be very simple, yet also complex. Expedition 44 did a 17 part series on the subject. My goal today is to spend a few minutes honing in on the topic as it relates to the Holy week. If you haven’t read the post on Passover and Palm Sunday, you should start there first.
You might also know that I have written on this topic similarly before, here are a couple of posts that have a similar target but discuss Easter from a different pathway than today’s post.
To fully understand the works of Christ at the cross we have to start with the Old Testament, there are seven major feasts within the year —four in the spring, three in the fall.1 They all have a couple of different names that throughout the scripture describe the same feast.
1. Pesach (Passover), Mar-Apr
2. Feast of Unleavened Bread*, Mar-Apr
3. Feast of First Fruits, Mar-Apr, May-June
4. Feast of Weeks* (Shavuot or Pentecost), May-June
5. Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah), Sept-Oct
6. Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), Sept-Oct
7. Feast of Tabernacles* (Sukkot or Feast of Booths), Sept-Oct
NOTE: *All of them are important and have symbolic ramifications for Christ and the church, but I want to highlight the three times a year the festival dealt with what came between God and His people, Covenant Reconciliation.
Atonement was for the communal body of Israel, the church, and Christ
Tabernacles is about regaining the 70 nations
Passover
Passover is meant to be pretty simple… it symbolizes a basic sense of salvation and freedom. Israelites applied the Passover lamb’s blood to the doorpost and lintel of their house. This blood was a very simple picture of blood that covered or atoned the door as a symbol to mark those that would be passed over by the grace of Yahweh. After the initial Passover of the Exodus, God’s people would remember Biblical Passover by celebrating in each home in the springtime. With a personal family sacrifice of as close to an unblemished lamb as the family could provide. In fact, the intention of the celebration of this feast is so simple that traditionally seder meals are primarily centered around educating the children of what should be of utmost importance to the family – their covenant devotion to the LORD. Sometimes I think we actually do a disservice when we attempt to bring more into the story than needed. God’s message has always started out with a very basic and simple message that can be understood by anyone.
The Feast of Tabernacles
After Noah’s flood, the ‘table of nations‘ in Genesis chapter 10 includes the 70 patriarchs who became the fathers of modern nations.3 But there is a lot more going on than this. If you prescribe to a Deuteronomy 32 worldview it gives a greater depth of understanding to why God wanted Israel to function as his ambassadors to regather the 70 nations that were essentially lost. Matt and I just wrote a book on this entitled. PRINCIPALITIES, POWERS, AND ALLEGIANCES: Interpreting Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17, and Revelation 13 within a Deuteronomy 32 Worldview. Essentially at the tower of babel the nations are spread out and eventually lost, or turn against Yahweh. They will eventually need to be regathered, and God’s initial plan was for Israel to be the agents of reconciliation. This is why, during the week-long feast of Tabernacles, 70 bulls were sacrificed. Tabernacles is about God one day reconciling all nations back to Himself through his faithful people. Has that happened? Already but NOT YET. The ability came completely through the cross, but now as all of Israel, [we] are now the holy royal priesthood that is commissioned with this task. Even though we have been given everything we need delivered by Jesus through His death, resurrection, ascensions, throning and sending of the spirit to dwell in us His new Temple to the world; it is certainly an unfinished work in progress.
The Bible is set for everyone to glean from; the basic story is simple yet there is another level of complexity that is unrivaled by any other work or religion. This is called the mystery of the gospel – Passover is simple (thief on the cross simple), atonement is complex.
Atonement
Leviticus 16 is about the Day of Atonement, and the yearly remembrance of the people of Israel -Yom Kippur. The plan for Israel was that every person should return to their intended “out of Egypt” anointed priestly calling…. But that never happened. That whole golden calf thing two weeks into the plan sort of changed the everything… MOSES ACTUALLY SWAYS THE HEART OF GOD HERE – But one of the results of such failure was that rather than an entire nation of priests, we then end up with just one person functioning in this capacity. Israel had one high priest, a person who speaks on behalf of the people. And represents God to the people. God would start with Aaron and hope to eventually redeem the entire nation and then the world through them. GOD SAID THAT THE PEOPLE NEED TO BECOME PURE– SET APART “HOLY LIKE I AM HOLY“.
Covenant Love
God’s original plan seems to indicate that they would come out of Israel, be given the law and the land immediately while God provided a means of sustenance that would be “grapes as big as their heads” that required nearly no “work” from the people of Israel and would result in large financial desire from the rest of the world drawing people from everywhere to the promised land’s beauty flowing with milk and honey and the innate beauty of the people of the Lord. This would allow the people of the Lord to return to a life of less toil and walk beautifully with each other as they learn to keep and cultivate again giving way to a devotion of love in Yahweh and for the world. This would be the main directive of how the world would be regrafted. People would see the beauty, taste that it was good, and desire to have what the people of the Lord had. (You should start noticing how food ties into the picture of the goodness of God.) Yet what happens is nearly the opposite picture of this. Rather than walk beautifully with Yahweh the walk in the wilderness, rather than feast, they east manna. Israel continually breaks covenant, doesn’t ever possess the intended land, and resembles an image of utter brokenness rather than beauty. Even the world views them as ugly. Yet the Lord still sees their inner beauty and never loses His desire for them as His bride.
Yom Kippur is about purification and holiness before the Lord. It is about the path to holiness.
Take a second and READ LEV 16 – Spiritual Spring cleaning.
Yom Kippur, the day of atonement acts a bit like a spiritual spring cleaning. It is a yearly communal return to what they should be doing – returning to their destiny, their intended vocation to be Holy and represent the Lord as a combined people. Every part of the day is a reminder as to the character of Holiness in Yahweh with hopes of Israel following that picture or mosaic.
The priest purifies himself – The Bible gets real into this, it even talks about what kind of underwear he has to wear. There are two goats: and lots are cast over them.
Goat 1- is the purification offering, the basic intention is to cleanse the temple objects. But this is a bit of a reciprocal gift given back to God; it is Dance of Grace language. If you aren’t familiar with this concept, I would encourage you to understand the concept as I believe it is lost in our culture yet foundational to understanding God’s covenant love for us. My Book, This is the Way: Defining a Biblical Covenant Way of Life I clearly walk through the dance of Grace. We want to view grace as totally free, and it is in a basic sense, but as with any gift given, relationally there are expectations of reciprocity in friendship and covenant. Genuine love responds in an unbroken circle of devotion. That is what a wedding ring represents between a husband and wife which is our best picture and biblical analogy of what God’s covenant is extended to us as His people. I also want to point out that blood is not applied to anyone, it just cleanses the temple. The sacrificial goat is a gift that represents the people’s intent to live Holy before the Lord. If you don’t know why this is important, or why I would make this definitive statement, I would urge you to start with Heiser’s post on it.4
Goat 2 – The priest would take the cord used to lead the goats and put it on the head of the still live goat and essentially place the sins of communal Israel on it. The Laying on of hands is about setting something apart or consecrating it for a task. Tradition has it that the man appointed to the task would be a Gentile who had no connection with the people of Israel. No Jew would be crazy enough to want this job. There is some tradition surrounding the goat and a red (blood stained) cord. The Mishnah (Yoma 4:2, 6:8)5 says they would take a cord and it would be placed on the head of the goat and then use the cord to tie the curtain veil of the holy of holies.
The word for this second goat in Genesis isn’t the usual word in Hebrew for goat which is pronounced saw-eer but in English gets translated most often as the scapegoat. In Hebrew the word is ahzahzel. Ahzahzel literally means “taking away” in Hebrew. Ahzahzel is a picture of everything that the Israelite people have done that is contrary to Gods ways – The ways of the world. So, sin, the forces of death, are removed from the camp. God is rescuing his people from the forces of death. This is still Purification language. This is all about resetting sacred space (getting back to Eden).
THEOLOGY OF THE SCAPEGOAT
I need to take a moment and give you a better theology before we move on. You likely need to deconstruct a bit before you move on. Definitions are important here. You often here of the Substitution and Transfer of Sin being transferred to the second goat. Some of this is backread into the story and we usually take more liberty analogously then we probably should. The goat isn’t a substitute for anything. The sin simply needs to be removed from the camp. The goat doesn’t really serve as a substitute for anyone. Those that hold to a substitutionary view of atonement have the goat taking all the sins of the people, but this isn’t really a great analogy because the goat just goes back into the world, It isn’t sacrificed and it doesn’t truly get rid of the sin. It doesn’t really even cover the sins as it has no power to that. Jesus later will do what the goat can’t do which is to make atonement for the sins of the world and wash the slate clean. But this is still purification language. To make any more out of this become poor theology. You often here things like “you and I put Jesus on the cross” within substitution theories of atonement. That isn’t logical. In the same way that I didn’t eat the apple, I didn’t put Jesus on the cross. I don’t “NEED SALVATION” because I am a wretched person that inherited someone else’s guilt or original sin that doesn’t deserve to live or worse deserves to be tortured forever and ever. Sometimes this is even presented because I didn’t accept a free gift or something; even worse would be to frame it as if I didn’t win the cosmic lottery and now have to be tortured forever. That kind of logic is as corrupt as the world we live in. That certainly doesn’t match God’s own description of himself as loving and compassionate. It sounds like a monster god. There is a better theology. So many people have left the faith because this kind of Calvinistic theology doesn’t add up with the pages of the Bible. All of those are poor ways of considering the cross and toxic to the character of God and the plan of Jesus for your life. I need and want Jesus because I am broken and unholy. I need salvation because I desire what God offers through a covenant here and now and in the days to come. There is so much more to the beauty of what Jesus did for me through the cross, resurrection, and ascension. In one sense Jesus covers the sin that I can’t, He is THE mediator for me (and if we define that as a substitute than I get that); but viewing substitution as some kind of exchange with a terrorist or to position this as transactional with God simply doesn’t bear the heart of God. We can frame this better. Jesus would encourage us to think less about what we are saved from (annihilation – death) and more about what we are saved for here and now and into eternity.
Their is also a sense that the goat carries of the sin in a sense of removal and separation from God. Psalm 103:12 says, “As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.” Interesting this is a pre-cross passage because at the point it was written I would not agree with the statement. at that point the goat was only a few miles out of the camp, not as far as the East is from the West. Often in scriptures we get the writers personal narrative, which in this case is David’s and sometimes His theology seems pretty far off. Was he writing prophetically? Perhaps.
Atonement and Reconciliation: The sending away of the live goat was an integral part of the atonement process, signifying reconciliation between God and His people. The removal of sin allowed for a restored relationship with God, highlighting His mercy and grace in providing a means for atonement.6
Lastly, there is obviously a foreshadowing of Christ’s Sacrifice: From a Christian perspective, the live goat serves as a foreshadowing of the ultimate atonement through Jesus Christ. Just as the scapegoat bore the sins of Israel, Christ bore the sins of humanity. Hebrews 9:28 reflects this fulfillment: “So also Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him.” To be clear Christ “bore” these sins, but I also want to say that we often get “off” by taking this too far. Christ’s work came at a great ransom in terms of an Exodus motif and once and for all declaring freedom; but similar to the Exodus there is no price and this is not transactional. Jesus wasn’t paying the father or Satan and to view it in this way would again be making a doctrine out of a very simple and basic scriptural analogy that was never the intention of the text, nor a faithful reading of it. Do we deserve the torture that Christ went through? (substitutionary atonement). “Unfortunately, this theory has held captive our vision of Jesus, making our view very limited and punitive. The commonly accepted atonement theory led to some serious misunderstandings of Jesus’ role and Christ’s eternal purpose, reaffirmed our narrow notion of retributive justice, and legitimated a notion of “good and necessary violence.” It implied that God the Father was petty, offended in the way that humans are, and unfree to love and forgive of God’s own volition. This is a very untrustworthy image of God which undercuts everything else.”7 If this is the first time you are reading this, I urge you to take on the view that instead of our substitute, Jesus functions as our representative ad then asks us to do the same for him. That is a better picture of the covenant circle formed. Brian Zahnd has some good framework for thinking better.8
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CORD IS IN THE Binding (of Isaac)ʿAqēḏaṯ
The binding of Isaac is one of the most difficult stories in the Bible to reconcile. You better read this. 9 But as it pertains to this story, the actual binding is key to atonement because it references what is important to us. Matthew 18:18 connects here. What are you attached to more than the LORD? Are you entangled? The cord is a continual reminder that humanity is bound to the world. When Jesus comes, we are no longer bound to the world or the principalities. Somehow Jesus regains the keys over death. This basic concept is called a Christus Victor model of Atonement. As I think their is an element of truth to each of the atonement theories; I think we take most of them too far in making doctrines out of simple textual analogies. That isn’t the intention of the text in a faithful reading. Yet Christus Victor, a theory of atonement that emphasizes Christ’s victory over the powers of sin, death, and Satan is readily accepted by everyone. This view sees the cross and resurrection as triumphant events where Jesus conquers evil forces and liberates humanity from bondage. No one disagrees with this statement. Every other view of atonement seems to conflate the cross than simply supply a textual anology. I might recommend Scot McKnight’s book a community called atonement to start thinking better.10
There are two the triumphal entries. Every year at Passover Pilate, the governor of Judea, would march into the city from the West (THROUGH THE GREAT GATE) with full military might on a war horse. His parade was a show of force to remind the people of Jerusalem that Rome was in charge.
Jesus [LIKELY] came into Jerusalem at the exact same time from the EAST as the Passover lambs were brought in through one gate of the city, the FARM ENTRANCE -Jesus came in humbly riding on a donkey (which strangely was a sign of kingship that was offering peace not war) as he mourns over the state of his people. There are some other things going on, but I want you to key in on the Humility of Christ in this event. That is the main or primary intention of the texts. Power under rather than power over. The opposite of the world.
Then at the last supper… Jesus washes his disciples’ feet… even the feet of those how would deny him and betray him. Remember when Peter says, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me?” (JOHN 13:8) We seem to regularly celebrate the remembrance of communion but forget that in the same breath Jesus urges us to also regularly wash feet per 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Interesting how modern Christianity seems to pick and choose what ways they are willing to follow Christ’s examples and commands.
Jesus then takes bread and breaks it saying that this is his body broken for them and takes the cup saying that this wine is the blood of the new covenant for the forgiveness of sins. This is a far bigger “remembrance” than what typically is the scope of our tiny cups and crackers at church. The intention was that it was to be remembered as a banquet that symbolized the feasts, and all of the richness of the covenant faith walk. What we were to remember was our covenant allegiance. To be clear the upper room was not a Passover dinner. I will go on to show you this, but you also might want to read this article which I agree with and is an excellent source slightly taking a different view on the same discussion.11
They progress to the garden on the Mount of Olives to pray… Jesus walked further into the garden where he knelt and fervently prayed Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. , Take this cup away from Me; “Father, not my will but thine will be done.” The word Abba is an Aramaic word that means “Father.” It was a common term that expressed affection and confidence and trust. Abba signifies the close, trusting intimate relationship of a father and his child.”12 However, let’s not get too carried away with the term Abba, there is nothing magical about it; it simply shows the confidence and trust that Jesus had for His father and is a picture of what we are to posture similarly toward our father.
Jesus returns to his disciples and while speaking with them a mob of temple guards13, and Jewish Religious Leaders arrive being led by Judas Iscariot. With a betrayer’s kiss Jesus is taken before the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas the High Priest in the middle of the night.
In the early morning a bruised, battered, and dehydrated Jesus who is exhausted from sleep deprivation is escorted across Jerusalem to Pontius Pilate. Pilate tries Jesus and finds no fault but when he hears he is Galilean he sends him to Herod. Herod and his men mock Jesus with great contempt and cloth him in a fancy robe and send him back to Pilate unpunished. Pilate ultimately tries Jesus again and condemns him to appease the Jewish leaders and in response to an inconsistent crowd or what our reformed friends like to call a kangaroo court.
Turn to John 19. Verse 15, When the text says, “the crowd shouted,” what did they shout? “Crucify him?” No, first they shout, “Take him away,” then they shout, “Crucify him!”
John uses the words “take away” in John 1:29 and Here. John is saying,Hey, by the way, there’s a connection. The author of Hebrews makes the same connection in Hebrews 10:11. Remember we are reading the translated Greek of the Hebrew and Aramaic they were actually speaking.
Verse 16, “Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.” Jesus is led outside of the camp, the city of Jerusalem, by Gentiles. The crowd chanting, take him away or likely, “ahzahzel, ahzahzel” and then a Roman Gentile leads him outside of the camp, Jerusalem.
Jesus was then flogged. The Roman floggings are unimaginably brutal they consisted of 39 lashes. Roman whip was a short whip with several heavy leather thongs. 14
The Roman soldiers then mockingly as a great joke proclaim Jesus is king. A robe is then thrown across his shoulders; a stick is placed into his hand to represent a scepter. As a final piece a crown is fashioned out of thorns and placed across his brow and pushed into his scalp causing a copious amount of bleeding and blood loss.15Remember the red on the head of the Lamb?
Next is the 650-yard journey from the fortress at Golgotha.16 We don’t know the exact path. The Stations of the Cross is a path in modern Jerusalem and a devotion in the Catholic Church that commemorates the events leading to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. However, there are some controversies and debates about the content and authenticity of these stations. Some argue that they are based on Scripture, while others believe they include non-biblical events. To some this is misleading. I always prefer to just stick with scripture not man’s concoctions. A new word would later be invented to describe the worst pain the world had ever witnessed… the word excruciating.17
The crucifixion now begins. Simon is now ordered to place the crossbeam on the ground and Jesus is quickly thrown backwards onto the cross with his shoulders against the wood. The soldier drives a heavy square wrought iron 9” nails through the hands (I believe is most scripturally accurate) and deep into the wood.18
It was during this that he uttered the seven short sentences:
First he prays “Father forgive them they know not what they do”.
Next he turns to the penitent thief and says “Today you shall be with Me in Paradise”.
Sometime later Jesus notices the Apostle John and gives him a special assignment “Behold your mother,” He says and to his mother Mary “behold your son”.
As Jesus agony builds, with a loud voice He echoes the text from
And he cries out “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” “My God, My God, why have thou forsaken me?”
JESUS QUOTES PSALM 22
Jesus was quoting the first line of Psalm 22, which was an especially beloved psalm by the Jews of this time. All of the Jews looking on would know what was going on. Jesus often taught using Remez and this is no different.19 The Psalm begins with the psalmist believing that God has forsaken him. This is defined in the psalm by God’s silence, not his abandonment. There are two voices in Psalm 22. Unfortunately, this is pretty common in scripture, but people fail to follow the poet genre or even realize what is happening. Isaiah 53 echoes the same type of two voice narrative. We have one voice saying what they think and then another one later that speaks clarity. Sometimes in scripture we read a narrative and never get the clarifying second voice of God. This can be tricky. We often want to read every passage as “thus saith the Lord,” but we would be mistaken and lead to poor theology. I am so thankful for Job because we get the first voice thinking His friends are giving “GODLY” counsel but the at the end God (second voice) actually says none of that counsel is of me. This is similar to the way we should read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.
Next the psalm says “I am a worm”… in Hebrew this is the same word for scarlet. Jesus was covered in blood, scarlet, some see this as a picture of the suffering servant of Is 53. Continuing, this prophetic psalm states he was despised, bones out of joint (but not broken), hands and feet pierced, clothes divided by lots…
Jesus’ next statement from the cross is “I thirst” which is the middle verse of this psalm.
But in verse 19 it says that God actually is not far off in all of this! Verse 21 says God answers his cry!
Verse 24 says God does not abhor the afflicted (Jesus) and has not hidden his face and has heard the cry for help…. I want you to get this…. I do not believe that God has not forsaken or abandoned Jesus! The trinity isn’t split here. This isn’t God turning His back. As hard as it is to read and witness it is actually part of a beautiful redemptive plan. God didn’t turn his back and Jesus and He won’t turn His back on you.
This is a completely different story than what people wanted or were looking for. It seems backwards or upside down. Christ leading by humility not power. But that is the way of Jesus.
Jesus, though He is suffering, has His mind set on the victory at the end of this psalm. The saving deed that brings the reconciliation of God and the nations. Remember in the garden, the table of nations and the feast of tabernacles? “Not my will but yours be done.” Christ knew that dying was what it would take to win the victory and when he was arrested in the garden, He stated that he could call legions of angels to save him if he wanted to and God would send them… God was not forsaking Jesus.20
NOTE: I think there is a valid argument for the splitting of the trinity but I don’t personally think it is the best explanation. I do however greatly respect Greg Boyd who constructs it this way.21
The psalm concludes stating: 22:31 They will come and tell about his saving deeds; they will tell a future generation what he has accomplished. Jesus’ next statement on the cross… “It is finished” or “it is accomplished” referring to the concluding line of this psalm and the accomplishment of His saving deed.
2 Cor 5:19… assures us that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The perspective of the crowd in IS 53:10 is that we perceived that he was stricken by God (that’s what the world thought.) But the true perspective was that God was pleased to heal Him. By Healing His son, raising Him from the dead He accomplishes something great, He heals the nations. God takes the first step in reclaiming the nations and through the sending of His spirit at Pentecost will now partner and entrust us to be his physical agents of reconciliation.
Then with one last surge of strength, he once again presses against the nail, straightens His legs, takes a deep breath, and utters His seventh and final cry: “Father into thy hands I commit my spirit”.
Jesus dies as the Passover lambs were being slaughtered as our Passover lamb of the new exodus delivering us from the Spiritual Powers and rescuing us from enslavement to Sin by defeating Sin in the flesh.
The cross is hard but it was necessary. It was brutal but it was freeing. Something happens at the cross that we can’t full understand. The captives are set free, the keys to death are regained, and there is a victory won in the cosmos that we may never fully understand. The RESURRECTION POWER IS BEAUTIFUL.
JESUS FULFILLS The Day of Atonement: The purification, the cleansing of sacred space, becomes the sacrifice and the scapegoat, and transfers himself to be the forever high priest.
JESUS FULFILLS The Passover lamb by dying for everyone giving us unending freedom and reinstating our place in partnership with him in the royal priesthood of believers. We will soon become the temple of the Holy Spirit.
JESUS FULFILLS The feast of Tabernacles so that the nations may be regathered unto Him by us, manifested as His hands and feet.
THE TEARING OF THE VEIL.
The tearing of the veil separating the Holy place and the Most Holy place happened simultaneously as the death of the Passover Lamb.Remember that cord that came from the head of the goat that then year after year tied the curtain at the holy of holies? The veil was torn, and the cord fell to the floor.
Fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus Christ from death and the grave, and ten days after He ascended up into heaven to sit at His throne, a great event took place, the equal of which the world has not witnessed since.22 This event is designated in the Bible as “the day of Pentecost” (Acts 2:1) when Jesus sends his spirit to indwell every believer finishing the Passover stover.
We are the Temple of the Holy Spirit
He transforms the body of each believer into the New Covenant temple of the Lord. There is no longer a need to travel to the temple because Hebrews tells us that we are the temple. In fact, to say that we want to build another temple implies we don’t trust or believe the work of Jesus at the cross and Pentecost commissioning a once and for all work in us. Therefore, to want to build another temple would be a slap in the face to the atoning work of Christ. Traditional Jews want to build another temple because they don’t see Christ as the Messiah and his finished work.
Hebrews 4:14 14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.
The “CHOSEN” – Election & Foreknowledge
What does this mean? I Peter 2:9 makes it clear that we, ALL OF ISRAEL23 are a New Covenant Priesthood. You probably get royal, Heirs of the Christ. Alot of poor theology has been built on the word “chosen” as the elect here. The elect is Biblical. We can’t just remove it because we don’t like what reformed theology has done to the term election, particularly in an unconditional sense. Brian Zahnd gives us about the most simple understanding I have seen.24 Allow me to paraphrase. Calvinism makes the mistake of confusing the election of Israel for a vocation with the election of an individual for salvation. This is a tragic mistake fraught with enormous implications. Jesus Christ is God keeping covenant with the seed of Abraham. Jesus Christ meets the covenant obligations of both God and man in himself. All things are summed up in Jesus Christ. Election of one (for salvation) necessitates reprobation (election for damnation) of the other. I don’t think we need to go much farther. A sovereign God’s ways are higher than ours, but rational superiority is not the point of Isaiah 55. God’s ways embrace a mercy that we can’t imagine and don’t practice. If you follow Aristotle’s influence in Christian theology, you will convert Aristotle’s terminology to words like omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, but your god will also be immutable and impassible25 (you can look that one up). Can He see the future like a crystal ball? (That seems to be what the scripture warns as divination so I kind of doubt it. God’s character doesn’t go both ways unless you’re a Calvinist.) Does He see many options such as a marvel Dr. Strange superpower? It is fun to debate but we might never know the fulness of this until the heavens. Does he have the power to change the future? We see that He does throughout scripture, isn’t that partially what prayer is about? God’s order seems to be a bit of an algorithm based on the devotion to his precepts. Is it a retribution principle? At times it might function that way, but again, we will never have the un-adulterated eyes of God as long as we are on this earth. We are just asked to fully place our trust in him, not once but a complete sense of trust us never ending.
THE CALENDAR
The traditions sometimes get the calendar wrong. He was resurrected in three days and most likely died on Thursday not “GOOD FRIDAY.” as tradition has it.
Jesus’ last meal was Wednesday night, and he was crucified on Thursday, the 14th of the Hebrew month Nisan. The Passover meal itself was eaten Thursday night, at sundown, as the 15th of Nisan began. Jesus never ate that Passover meal. He had died at 3 p.m. on Thursday afternoon. (He was the Passover meal).
So, have you been lied to all your life about Good Friday? Probably, but not intentionally and this is still up for debate in my mind. Here is another consideration. Could Jesus have been crucified on Friday? It is truly hard to reconcile this view with the scripture, you’re going to run into a good deal of harmony problems. The primary problem with this is that Jesus said He would spend three days and three nights in the grave (Matt 12:40). Many historians rightfully point out that by Jewish reckoning, any portion of a day was considered the whole day, but this explanation still does not get us to three days and three nights. To take this view essentially has you saying that Matthew was wrong. I don’t think that is a good solution. There are other problems with that view, but honestly, I think that one should be enough for you to broaden your horizons and consider stepping away from traditional views if they aren’t accurate and explore more exegetical considerations. Below is what I think is the closest chart to try to see this through the lens of a traditional good Friday crucifixion, but as I have said, its problematic.
Jesus was crucified on Thursday not Friday
A better view for many reasons is that Christ dies on Thursday not Friday. As Jews know, the day of Passover itself is also a “Sabbath” or rest day — no matter what weekday it falls on. In the year 30 AD Friday, the 15th of the Jewish month Nisan was also a Sabbath — so two Sabbaths occurred back to back — Friday and Saturday. Matthew knows this as he says that the women who visited Jesus’ tomb came early Sunday morning “after the Sabbaths” (Matthew 28:1). I made this point earlier, but here is another post that thinks similarly that is also worth a read. From a chronological standpoint, it should be noted that the crucifixion took place on a Thursday, not a Friday, and that the year of the Crucifixion was 30 CE. That year can be calculated from Daniel’s Seventy Weeks prophecy, which requires that Jesus’ ministry began in 28 CE. Once the start of Jesus’ public ministry is confirmed as beginning in the year 28 CE, it is a simple matter of calculating the three Passovers mentioned in the Book of John, the first occurring in 28 CE, the second in 29 CE, and the third being the Passover of the Passion Week in 30 CE, to verify that the Crucifixion took place in 30 CE.26 This is not the time or place to get into this but there’s a lot of significance within the scripture of the two Sabbath‘s.27
ON THE THIRD DAY… Sunday (The first day of the week) Christ had risen!!!
LIFE APPLICATION
Okay, I don’t preach much. But if you know me at all, I am quite different from most theologians in that what drives me is ministry. I believe that my study and teaching is life changing and will deepen your covenant devotion to the Lord. I believe this. So, stick with me for a rare moment…
God knows about the junk. God knows about the addictions, the abortions, the affairs, He knows about the lying, the deception. He knows about all the ugly and He still calls you His royal chosen priesthood. Your worth is in Jesus, your value is in the resurrection, you are a royal holy chosen priesthood.
It’s freedom in Him forever. This picture God gives us—take that goat and send it out because it’s gone and it’s not coming back.
His death sets us free from death… Oh death where is your sting? You have been swallowed up in victory! … Humanity forsook God and lost access to life and our vocation, but God showed his love for us in this that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. He died upon a tree so that we could have access back to the tree of life. This life is found in Jesus… in the new covenant in his body and blood. His death is the new exodus that ends our exile and brings us back into the glory and relationship we were created for.
Everything we need was accomplished through the death, resurrection, ascension and sending of the spirit into us. We are the hands and feet of Jesus.
Jesus, help us to take up our cross daily and die to ourselves so that we can live for you, our King.
Affirm the person that Jesus is calling you to be right here right now, take the bread and the cup and be redeemed once and for all.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He created Man and Woman in his image and placed them in Eden to work and keep the garden. This space was where heaven and earth overlapped. Humanity was created to be priests in sacred space, to cultivate and keep creation and to dwell with God, living according to his wisdom, to be mediators between God and others—relating with God on behalf of other people and reflecting his character to others through love, compassion, generosity, and justice. To rule and reign, to keep and cultivate.
Psalm 8 calls this our glory.
Starting in Genesis, God enters a formal partnership He defines as covenant with those that choose Him in order to rescue his world. These divine-human partnerships drive the narrative forward until it reaches its climax in Jesus. To tell the story of God redeeming humanity through Jesus is to tell the whole story of God’s covenantal relationship with humans. Covenants define obligations and commitments, but they are different from a contract because they are relational and personal. The Bible uses an analogy marriage to show Christ as the bride of the church—a husband and wife choose to enter into a formal relationship, binding themselves to one another in lifelong faithfulness and devotion. They then work as partners to reach a common goal, like building a life or raising children together. [1]
Humanity made a decision (albeit they were influenced by the Nāḥāš – נחש) to usurp God’s authority and live by their own wisdom, forsaking their role as priests, eating from the forbidden tree instead of the tree of life. Now in exile from the presence of God, humanity must deal with the natural consequences of separation… death. Exile is death. Sin enters the world… missing the mark of our role as partnered priests, falling short of the glory we were intended for, our vocation. God’s intention from the beginning was to create a covenant partnership with us and even though we were banished from that walking path in the garden, God’s character itself, His nature is to continue to find a way to continue to offer walking in covenant with us; despite the brokenness that we create. He sometimes finds us in the darkest places.
God is gracious. The downward spiral continues with spiritual beings falling in Genesis 6, the unrighteous world of Noah and the flood, the rebellion at the tower of Babel; but despite all of this pain, God still has a rescue plan for humanity. HE IS THE WAY MAKER. He calls Abraham and makes a covenant with him that through his seed all nations would be reconciled to Him. God makes a covenant with Abraham’s descendants, Israel. He calls them to be a light to the nations, a kingdom of priests. He rescues them out from Egypt and from their gods. He delivers them by the blood of the lamb and leads them into a land of promise, sacred space to dwell again with God. The people reject God after all he has done for them…“give us a king so that we can be like the nations.” God consents. But the kingdom splits they disobey God again and break the covenant, again like Adam and Eve, God’s people, his priestly nation, are in exile. Scattered to the nations, outside of sacred space. After continually breaking the covenant, God hands the people over to the consequences of their sin, furthering their separation from sacred space. They continue to walk farther from Him than closer to Him and eventually even their religion seems far from the ways of the scripture or the father. There is a holy remnant, but they are few.
The covenant seems lost…
God Himself comes in the flesh not only to deliver his people but to end the exile of all humanity. To eliminate separation from God and restore his purposes, to get the Eden project back on track. God has come in the flesh to establish himself as king again and to heal his people from sin… God so loved the world that he GAVE his son.
Jesus’s crucifixion was a political execution and at the same time his enthronement as king of kings. CS Lewis also describes it as a great victory over the fallen spiritual beings that the entire cosmos might return to a beautiful Edenic-like place once and for all.
Thus, as Scripture portrays the matter, the foundational reason Christ appeared was “to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), to disarm “the rulers and authorities” (Col 2:15), and to “destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb 2:14). The consequence of this victory is that he is seated on his rightful throne, the whole cosmos is liberated from a tyrannical and destructive ruler, humanity is delivered “from the power of darkness and transferred … into the kingdom of his beloved Son (Col 1:13), and all who accept it are thereby reinstated to the original position and responsibility of stewards of the creation that God had always intended for us.
Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God stripped Satan and all levels of demons of all their power (Col 2:15). Therefore Christ now reigns in the power of God far above all such demonic powers. Expressing the tension of the “already/not yet” that characterizes the entire NT, Paul can say that “all things” are already “under his feet,” (Eph 1:21-22) though the actual manifestation of this truth is yet in the future. But the central point remains: the work of the cross was about dethroning a cruel, illegitimate ruler and reinstating a loving, legitimate one: Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ is reinstated, all who are aligned with his rule, all who are “in Christ,” all who are his “bride” and part of his “body,” are reinstated to their appropriate position of authority as well. In a word, we are saved because he is victorious. [2]
We are once again offered the fullness of his covenant promise, with the expectation of covenant devotion. Jesus gives us a commissioned calling to regain the nations in deep devotion to Him. We are now unhindered and partnered with the Holy Spirit, reinstated as ambassadors, the royal holy priesthood of believers to be the manifestation of His hands and feet to bring covenant love back to the world. A return to walking with Jesus as in Eden bringing Heaven to earth.
Taking these thoughts one step further… (and slightly different trajectory)
The idea of the priesthood of believers is both powerful and deeply ancient. That calling goes all the way back to the garden.
In the ancient Near East, kings were seen as the image of their gods—icons of divine authority, representing the rule and presence of deity on earth. Genesis radically reimagines this: every human being, not just royalty, is made in the image of God (tselem elohim). That image is not just about dignity—it’s about vocation. We were created to reflect God’s character, rule, and care into creation. We were meant to be royal priests in His cosmic temple.
Psalm 8 ties this together beautifully: “You have made them a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned them with glory and honor. You made them rulers over the works of your hands…” (vv. 5–6). Image, glory, and dominion are all part of one vocation. To be made in God’s image is to be crowned with glory—kavod in Hebrew—weight, splendor, significance. In temple language, we were created to be living icons: not statues in a shrine, but animated reflections of God’s presence, mediating His glory to creation. That’s priesthood. This is also why the 10 commandments begin with having no gods before Him and no images — God already has an image, us.
But as Paul explains in Romans 1, humanity exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for lesser images. We turned from our calling and became idolaters—reflecting creation instead of the Creator. In Romans 3:23, Paul summarizes it: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” That glory isn’t just moral perfection—it’s the vocation to image God. Sin isn’t merely lawbreaking; it’s a desecration of our identity as image-bearers. We were crowned with glory, but we gave it up.
And yet God didn’t abandon His plan. At Sinai, He told Israel, “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). God wanted all of Israel to reflect His glory, bear His name, and serve as His priestly partners. But when the people shrank back in fear (Exodus 20:18–21), the priesthood was restricted to the tribe of Levi. Even so, God’s purpose remained unchanged.
The tabernacle—and later the temple—became a mini-Eden, decorated with garden imagery, where priests were commissioned to “work and keep” the sanctuary using the same Hebrew verbs (abad and shamar) given to Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:15. It was sacred space, designed to extend God’s presence into the world. But time and again, Israel failed to embody their calling.
Then Jesus came—the true Image (Colossians 1:15), the radiance of God’s glory (Hebrews 1:3), and the Great High Priest. He fulfills Israel’s vocation and Adam’s as well. Through His life, death, and resurrection, the fractured image is restored, the priesthood reconstituted, and the glory reclaimed. Peter echoes Sinai’s language when he says of the Church, “You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood…” (1 Peter 2:9). In Christ, we are crowned again with glory and sent back into the world as priests of the new creation.
That’s why Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:18 that we are being “transformed from glory to glory into the image of Christ.” This transformation isn’t just about forgiveness—it’s restoration. Romans 8 picks up the same thread: those God foreknew, He also “predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son” (v. 29). This conformity is salvation’s goal. In verse 30, Paul completes the picture: “those He justified, He also glorified.” Glorification is not some distant afterthought—it is the return of the lost glory, the restoring of the cracked image, the final stage of God’s redemptive work.
Holiness isn’t about sinless moral performance—it’s about the Spirit restoring the image of God in us, reordering our loves, renewing our minds, and empowering us to live in union with Christ. We are being transformed to fully love God and neighbor—not in theory, but in Spirit-enabled action. Entire sanctification is not about perfection in the abstract—it’s about Christlikeness and love in practice.
And just like Eden was never meant to remain a private garden, our vocation was never meant to stay confined. God created the world tov—good, meaning functionally complete and equipped for purpose in Hebrew. Adam and Eve were called not just to tend Eden but to expand it—to take the beauty, goodness, and order of sacred space into the wild. That same mission is now ours. Through the Spirit, God partners with us to renew the world—to reflect His image, spread His goodness, and extend His kingdom.
Our priestly calling is not passive. We are to embody heaven on earth. That’s what Jesus taught us to pray: “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The Edenic vision isn’t behind us—it’s ahead of us, fulfilled in Christ and now unfolding through His body, the Church.
The world still needs priests—Spirit-filled image-bearers who don’t just talk about glory, but carry it in love.
Written by Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Matt Mouzakis
The Bible Project
Adapted from Greg Boyd’s God at War, pages 240-246
“The Abomination of desolation” is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the Greek (Seleucid Empire) king Antiochus IV Epiphanes that desecrated the Second Temple by erecting an altar to Zeus and sacrificing swine, an unclean animal according to Jewish law, on the altar in 167 BC. [1] Partially in response, the Jewish Maccabees went to war (revolt) with the Seleucid Empire and in 164 BC, the Maccabees captured Jerusalem. [2] The subsequent cleansing of the temple and rededication of the altar on 25 Kislev is the source of the festival of Hanukkah. [3] In doing so they paraded through the town displaying their pomp and splendor over their enemies. The Hasmonean dynasty then survived 103 years before yielding to the Herodian dynasty in 37 BC. From that year on, at the beginning of Passover (the day the Jews believed Yahweh gave them freedom) the Roman governor of Judea, would march into the city from the West (THROUGH THE “GREAT” GATE) with full military might on a mighty war horse. His parade was a show of force to remind the people of Jerusalem that Rome was in charge, and every magistrate wanted to be treated like a god. [4]
But here we have Jesus coming through the East Gate. That is the lowly gate that shepherds of animals used. This is where the Passover lambs would have been ushered in later this week. It is readily seen that Jesus’ triumph is very different from the Maccabees; Jesus wields the cross, not the sword, as His triumphal weapon, just as his regality is ensconced upon a lowly donkey rather than a mighty warhorse.
The Maccabees were aimed at liberating Jews from the oppressive nations, focused upon the pollution of the temple by the Greeks but Jesus would be setting the table that the nations might be regained through a different kind of spiritual cleansing.
The triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, continues to take on a similar image of palms and laudatory praise, echoing the entry of the Maccabees into Jerusalem following their triumph over the Seleucids. [5] The Maccabees entered Jerusalem “with a chorus of praise and the waving of palm branches” [6]. All of this, of course, in the context of a grand temple cleansing – just as Jesus’ entry will be followed by a temple cleansing of His own the day following His triumphal entry. In Antiquity, the palm is one of the trees identified as the Sacred Tree connecting heaven, represented by the crown of the tree, and earth, the base of the trunk. [7] The palm became so closely associated with victory in ancient Roman culture that the Latin word palma could be used as a metonym for “victory” and was a sign of any kind of victory or redemption of a people. [8] They connected the “gods” with victory.
Why a donkey and the coats thing? Well, they both are tied to royal procession. This is a story of the contranyms of the kingdom of Jesus. In 2 Kings 9:13, a man named Jehu is anointed king of Israel and his supporters spread their cloaks on his path, shouting “Jehu is king!” This becomes a regular act from that point forward. In the ancient Middle Eastern world, leaders rode horses if they rode to war, but donkeys came in peace. In 1 Kings 1:33, it mentions Solomon riding a donkey on the day he was recognized as the new king of Israel.
By some estimates, a population of perhaps a few hundred thousand could swell to 2-3 million during Passover. This helps explain several dynamics, most notably why the city’s leadership (both the Romans and the temple establishment) might be more on edge. [9]
FULFILLMENT OF SCRIPTURE
Jesus’ dramatic entry into Jerusalem is included in all four of the canonical Gospels but it varies slightly leaving us the need to harmonize the gospels. In Matthew, quotes Zechariah 9:9, which says:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
This is a scratch my head moment theologically and my take on this may challenge your views of inspiration. Was Jesus engineering the fulfillment of scripture? Was Matthew doing a bit “too much” to try to align with a well-known scriptural prophecy? I do not often align with Bart Ehrman, but in this case, I do as he notes, “Hebrew poetry was often organized conceptually rather than by rhyme scheme. This was the case for the poem from Zechariah, in which the idea in the penultimate line is repeated in the last line with different words. Because the author of Matthew doesn’t understand this, he interprets the verse as saying that the king will ride both on a donkey and a colt, which is what he has Jesus do. He doesn’t explain the gymnastics one would have to do to straddle two animals this way, but our imaginations can fill in the details.” [10] So is that what Jesus did? He straddled two animals to fulfill scripture. It seems that way, but who knows, maybe one was good for Jesus.*
*(On a side note, I often like to point out that we have the best tools of any time in History to best interpret scripture. Everything is at our fingertips. We often see the disciples not understanding Jesus and today we have the whole lens of scripture which they didn’t have, linguistic tools for the Biblical languages they wouldn’t even know how to dream of, and hundreds of commentaries from the best scholars the world has known. We “should” understand far better than they did when it comes to seeing things like this.)
But there is something else that I want to point out here of more significance. Matthew 21:5 quotes Zechariah but leaves out one line, “triumphant and victorious is he.” Isn’t that interesting? It should continue to point you towards the backward kingdom dynamics of Jesus as power under not over. This was quite strategic.
Luke and Mark’s narratives give very similar versions of the story, compared to Matthew’s (though without the two animals). However, in both Mark and Luke (but not Matthew), after his triumphal entry, Jesus goes to the Temple and looks around before leaving and going out to Bethany. This is interesting because in all three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ next action will be to cleanse the Temple which I am sure you have made the connection to mirroring the history of the Maccabees above. Why the second cleansing? Who was Jesus’ worst enemy? It surprisingly wasn’t Rome; it was the Jewish religious leaders. Consider the need for Jesus to cleanse the “religion” that “defiled” the temple. When you sit back and consider this, Jesus might be making quite a statement. Is He making the point that what the pharisees have done in the temple is as defiling to His father as the abomination of Desolation? So, then you would ask the question is the desolation of religion connected with what they are sowing and will be reaped in 70AD. Are we reading too much into the textual analogy to the Maccabees? Is this a faithful to the text interpretation? Jesus is known for how he regularly crafts inference. Furthermore, we only read Jesus weeping twice and this is one of them. Which one is He weeping over? The context definitely fits the ensuing destruction of 70AD but perhaps both are at liberty within the textures of interpretation.
As Jesus approached Jerusalem, He was acutely aware of the city’s impending destruction and the spiritual blindness of its inhabitants. This event takes place shortly after the crowd had joyfully welcomed Him as the Messiah, laying down palm branches and cloaks in His path. Despite the outward celebration, Jesus knew that the hearts of many were far from understanding His true mission. [11]
Hosanna
Psalm 118:25 says, “Save us (Hosanna), we beseech you, O Lord!” In one sense, the crowd is asking Jesus to save them. In another parallel sense, it’s calling him “savior.” Perhaps both. The strange thing is that the greater portion of the crowd doesn’t seem to have the mind of Christ. That is one of the reasons why Jesus weeps later. They are looking for a war monger savior to meet Herod on the streets and victoriously and triumphantly overcome Rome. You better believe they wanted Jesus to call down the angels of war or open the earth and swallow the Roman army. I am sure fire from heaven would have appeased them too. But that wasn’t the way of Jesus. Some believe that’s why a few days later perhaps the same crowd will be saying, “Crucify Him or take Him away” Others believe the same people weren’t in that “kangaroo courtroom” and it didn’t really matter.
Most of the people were just looking for a show while they were in town and Jesus probably also wept because he wasn’t into that, and He still isn’t.
The next thing they chant – “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!” – is also from Psalm 118, this time verse 26. Luke has the crowds say “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” This accords both with Jesus as king and agrees with Luke 2:14, which John also says, and with what the angels proclaim to the shepherds when they announce Jesus’ birth: “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace on earth to those with whom he is pleased!” But what is interesting is the rest of Psalm 118. If you have never read it, well that may influence your thoughts a bit on this.
Hosanna meant they were looking for savior. “It is, however, possible that in the case of someone like Judas, if he had previously been a political zealot, that this entry signaled to him that Jesus would perhaps take over things in Jerusalem, and the cleansing of the temple (Matthew 21:12–13) might well have been interpreted as a symbolic gesture suggesting Jesus would clean house. But then when Jesus reiterates, he came to die, not to start a coup, this must have crushed the hopes of anyone with zealot inclinations about kicking out the Romans. Perhaps that is why Judas does what he does at the end of the week.” [12]
WHAT IS THE TRIUMPHANT ENTRY?
In their book The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’s Final Days in Jerusalem, John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg write “What we often call the triumphal entry was actually an anti-imperial, anti-triumphal one, a deliberate lampoon of the conquering emperor entering a city on horseback through gates opened in abject submission.” [13]
Ian Paul Says it like this, “This is a different kind of king to any you’ve met before. And the reason for that is that the journey up to Jerusalem is not a journey to power and glory, but (as Paul makes very clear in Phil 2.5–11) it is a journey down in obedience to death. Jesus does not come to conquer the city; he comes to be conquered, and in this great reversal to win an even more profound victory. This is why he brings peace: he has turned us from enemies of God to friends through his death. This is why he brings praise and joy: because his death and resurrection have dealt with the things which separate us from God and from one another. This is the power he offers: power to know forgiveness and peace of mind.” [14]
There is a lot going on here. Jesus is acting out the prophecies that the people recognize as pointing to a Messiah, but the prophecy seems to change. Perhaps the prophets read a bit too far into the vision they were given or maybe the failures of the religious Jews changed the conditional covenant offered. Your overall theology for the lens of scripture is going to influence your thoughts here.
The Triumphal entry is CERTAINLY the coronation of the coming king and His kingdom. But it’s also a picture of the rest of the world being so far away from the heart and kingdom that Jesus was offering, and perhaps quite a statement about how far the religion of His day has turned from the Kingdom that He is ushering in.
Lust, Johan (2001). “Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel. The Tamid and the Abomination of Desolation”. In Collins, John Joseph; Flint, Peter W. (eds.). The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Vol. 2. BRILL.
Doran, Robert (2016). “Resistance and Revolt. The Case of the Maccabees.”. In Collins, John J.; Manning, J. G. (eds.). Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East: In the Crucible of Empire. Brill. pp. 175–178, 186–187.
Josephus: The Essential Works, copyright 1994. Kregal Publications Grand Rapids, MI 49501.
EXPEDITION 44 