Tag Archives: bible

The Covenant of Marriage – Conference Notes

Posted by expedition44 on

Marriage as Covenant Before the Lord

A Biblical-Theological and Socio-Historical Exploration

I. Covenant Ontology in the Hebrew Scriptures

1. Berit (בְּרִית): Covenant as Ontological Bond

The Hebrew term berit cannot be reduced to “contract.” In the Ancient Near Eastern world, covenants (Hittite suzerainty treaties, parity treaties, kinship covenants) established binding relational realities. They were often ratified by oath, sacrifice, and symbolic acts (cf. Gen 15; Jer 34:18–20). The covenant did not merely regulate behavior; it created a new relational status.

Hebrew philological studies suggest that covenant language often involved embodied ritual actions — cutting animals, sharing meals, oath invocations — signifying life-and-death seriousness. The expression “cut a covenant” (karat berit) implies sacrificial solemnity. Marriage, when named covenant in Malachi 2:14, is therefore elevated into this sacred category.

Malachi rebukes Israelite men who deal treacherously (bagad) with “the wife of your covenant.” The covenant is not merely between spouses; “the LORD was witness.” The text suggests divine juridical oversight. Marriage is a theologically accountable bond under YHWH’s covenant justice.

2. Genesis 1–2: Creation as Proto-Covenantal Structure

Genesis 1:26–28 situates humanity as royal vice-regents bearing the imago Dei. The Hebrew plural deliberation (“Let us make…”) and the parallel structure (“male and female he created them”) present differentiated unity within shared image-bearing.

The dominion mandate (radah) is given jointly. Thus, marriage emerges within a shared vocational stewardship.

Genesis 2 deepens this through narrative theology. The woman as ezer kenegdo must be handled carefully. Ezer appears 21 times in the Hebrew Bible; in most cases it refers to divine aid (e.g., Ps 121:1–2). It connotes indispensable strength. Kenegdo (“corresponding to him,” “according to what is opposite”) implies complementarity of relational correspondence, not subordination.

The covenantal nature becomes clearer in Genesis 2:24:

“Therefore a man shall leave (‘azab) his father and mother and cling (dabaq) to his wife…”

Dabaq frequently describes covenant fidelity to YHWH (Deut 10:20; 30:20). The semantic overlap is significant. Marriage mirrors Israel’s covenantal clinging to God.

The phrase “one flesh” (basar echad) reflects kinship formula language. In the ancient world, flesh signified shared clan identity (cf. Gen 29:14; 2 Sam 5:1). Marriage forms a new covenant kinship unit.

Thus, Genesis presents marriage not merely as companionship but as a covenantal reconstitution of primary allegiance and shared identity before God.

II. Marriage in Israel’s Covenant Consciousness

1. Prophetic Marriage Metaphor and Covenant Theology

The prophetic corpus elevates marriage into theological metaphor. Hosea’s enacted prophecy (Hos 1–3) frames Israel’s idolatry as adultery. The covenant violation is sexualized imagery because marriage best captures the intimacy and exclusivity of divine-human covenant.

Isaiah 54:5 declares:

“For your Maker is your husband (בֹּעֲלַיִךְ).”

The marital title affirms covenant loyalty despite judgment. Jeremiah 31:32 explicitly refers to YHWH as husband in relation to Sinai covenant.

This is theologically decisive: marriage becomes the primary analogy for covenant faithfulness, exclusivity, and restorative grace. The logic moves from divine covenant to human marriage, and back again.

2. Second Temple Developments

By the Second Temple period, Jewish marriage involved ketubah agreements, bride-price (mohar), and legally binding commitments. While economic dimensions existed, marriage retained theological framing under Torah.

Divorce debates between Hillel and Shammai (m. Gittin) reveal interpretive tensions over Deuteronomy 24. By Jesus’ time, some permitted divorce for trivial reasons. Thus, covenant permanence was contested.

III. Marriage in the Greco-Roman World: Legal and Philosophical Context

Roman marriage functioned within patria potestas. The male head wielded legal control. Marriage types (cum manu vs. sine manu) affected whether the wife came under the husband’s legal authority or remained under her father’s household.

Aristotle (Politics 1.1253b) described the husband-wife relationship hierarchically within household management. The household codes reinforced stratified order: husband over wife, father over children, master over slave.

Yet Roman moralists also valued marital fidelity as stabilizing civic order.

Against this background, New Testament teaching neither abolishes structure nor baptizes patriarchy; instead, it reorients marriage christologically and covenantally.

IV. Jesus: Covenant Restoration and Creation Authority

In Matthew 19:3–9, Jesus addresses divorce controversies. His interpretive move is hermeneutically profound: he appeals to Genesis 1 and 2 as normative revelation.

By joining both creation texts (“male and female” + “one flesh”), Jesus presents a canonical synthesis. The verb “joined together” (synezeuxen) implies divine yoking. God is the covenantal agent.

Jesus’ restriction of divorce does not ignore Mosaic concession but reframes it as accommodation to hardness of heart. Covenant permanence reflects divine intent.

In elevating Genesis over concessionary legislation, Jesus restores marriage to its creational-covenantal gravity.

V. Pauline Theology: Marriage Within the New Covenant

1. Ephesians 5:21–33 — Mystery and Covenant Christology

The participial structure beginning in 5:18 (“being filled with the Spirit”) governs the household code. Verse 21 introduces mutual submission (hypotassomenoi allelois).

When Paul instructs wives to submit, the verb is borrowed from v. 21 — situating marriage within the larger ethic of Spirit-shaped humility.

Husbands are commanded to love (agapate) “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up.” The analogy is covenantal and sacrificial. Christ’s headship (kephalē) must be read through cruciform self-giving.

Verse 25–27 evokes covenant purification imagery. Christ sanctifies the church, presenting her in glory — echoing prophetic marital restoration themes.

Verse 32 is climactic:

“This mystery (mystērion) is great — but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

Marriage is typological participation in the new covenant. The earthly union signifies the eschatological union.

Thus, Paul situates marriage within redemptive history — not merely ethics but covenant drama.

2. 1 Corinthians 7: Reciprocity in a Patriarchal Context

In Corinth, influenced by both asceticism and libertinism, Paul affirms marital sexual obligation. The reciprocal language of authority (exousiazei) over one another’s bodies is unprecedented in Roman literature.

Marriage is framed as mutual covenant obligation, not unilateral male entitlement.

VI. Theological Themes of Covenant Marriage

1. Coram Deo: Marriage Before the Face of God

Ecclesiastes 5 warns against rash vows. Biblical marriage vows invoke divine witness. The covenant is triangulated — husband, wife, and God.

Marriage is therefore an act of worshipful oath-taking.

2. Covenant Fidelity as Sanctification

Hebrews 13:4 affirms marriage as honorable and the bed undefiled. Sexual exclusivity is covenant fidelity embodied.

Sanctification occurs through daily covenant keeping: forgiveness, repentance, reconciliation. Marriage becomes a means of grace.

3. Eschatological Orientation

Revelation 19 and 21 culminate in nuptial imagery. The Lamb’s marriage fulfills prophetic anticipation. Earthly marriage is provisional signpost toward ultimate covenant union.

VII. Contemporary Application: Recovering Covenant Gravity

Modern Western culture often treats marriage contractually — dissolvable when preferences change.

Biblical covenant marriage requires:

  • Vow consciousness
  • Theological literacy
  • Liturgical seriousness
  • Church accountability

Premarital counseling must teach covenant ontology, not merely compatibility tools.

Pastorally, couples must be shepherded toward:

  • Prayer as covenant renewal
  • Eucharistic imagination (self-giving love patterned after Christ)
  • Endurance rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness

Marriage thrives when grounded not in emotional volatility but in the steadfast love (hesed) of God.

Conclusion

Marriage in Scripture is covenantal from creation to consummation. It is:

  • Rooted in Genesis’ covenant-shaped anthropology
  • Interpreted through prophetic covenant metaphor
  • Restored by Jesus’ appeal to creation
  • Reframed in Paul’s Christological mystery
  • Fulfilled in eschatological union

To stand in marriage is to stand before the Lord — bound by oath, sustained by grace, accountable to divine witness, and participating in the redemptive covenant story of God.

When the church recovers this theological depth, marriage becomes not merely a personal commitment but a living proclamation of God’s covenant faithfulness.

Discussion Questions

  1. Covenant Ontology and Marriage:
    How does the Hebrew concept of berit (particularly as expressed in karat berit, “cutting a covenant”) deepen our understanding of marriage as an ontological bond rather than a contractual agreement? In what ways does Malachi 2:14 reinforce this covenantal seriousness?
  2. Genesis 2:24 and Covenant Fidelity:
    In light of the semantic range of dabaq (“to cling/cleave”) elsewhere in Deuteronomy’s covenant language, how might Genesis 2:24 intentionally frame marriage as an analogue to Israel’s covenant loyalty to YHWH? What theological implications arise from this connection?
  3. Second Temple and Greco-Roman Contexts:
    How did Jewish covenant consciousness interact with Greco-Roman legal structures such as patria potestas? In what ways do Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 and Paul’s instructions in Ephesians 5 both affirm and subvert their socio-historical environments?
  4. Christological Typology in Ephesians 5:
    How does Paul’s use of mystērion (Eph 5:32) situate marriage within redemptive history? What are the implications of reading marriage primarily through the lens of Christ’s covenant with the church?
  5. Eschatology and Pastoral Formation:
    If earthly marriage functions as an anticipatory sign of the eschatological marriage of the Lamb (Rev 19–21), how should this shape pastoral counseling, marital endurance through suffering, and the church’s theology of permanence?

Bibliography & Further Reading

Biblical and Lexical Resources

Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT). Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000.

Covenant Theology and Old Testament Foundations

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980.

Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.

Hahn, Scott W. Kinship by Covenant. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Ancient Hebrew Research Center. “Covenants from a Hebrew Perspective.”

Ancient Hebrew Research Center. “Definition of Covenant.”

Marriage in the Old Testament and Ancient Near East

Matthews, Victor H. Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.

Westbrook, Raymond. Old Babylonian Marriage Law. AfO Beiheft 23. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik, 1988.

Wright, Christopher J. H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004.

Second Temple and Greco-Roman Context

Cohick, Lynn H. Women in the World of the Earliest Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Osiek, Carolyn, and David L. Balch. Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.

Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

Witherington, Ben III. Women in the Earliest Churches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Bryn Mawr Classical Review. 2021. Review of scholarship on marriage and family in antiquity (BMCR 2021.03.05).

New Testament Theology of Marriage

Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1992.

Westfall, Cynthia Long. Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.

Thielman, Frank. Ephesians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Theological and Pastoral Reflection

Hauerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.

John Paul II. Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body. Boston: Pauline Books, 2006.

Reconstructing Judaism. “Covenant & Marriage” (D’var Torah).

CBE International. “How the New Testament Turned Marriage in the Ancient World on Its Head.”

“The Three Heavenly Visitors in Genesis 18: A Divine Council Theophany?”

Posted by expedition44 on

Introduction

Genesis 18 presents a unique and theologically charged encounter in the Hebrew Bible: Abraham is approached by three visitors whom the narrator initially introduces with the divine name YHWH (the LORD) and later identifies as “men” (Heb. ’anashim). The narrative blurs the categories of divine presence and angelic messengers, generating interpretive complexity that has occupied Jewish and Christian interpreters alike. The episode has been variously read as a test of Abraham’s hospitality, a Christophany (pre-incarnate Christ), or as an example of divine council imagery, where heavenly beings function as God’s agents in the cosmos.

The divine council concept — an assembly of heavenly beings under the sovereignty of the one God — is widely discussed in biblical scholarship (e.g., Psalm 82; Job 1–2; 1 Kings 22:19) and has been popularized in recent years by scholars such as Michael S. Heiser. It provides a framework for reading passages that feature interactions between humans and multiple divine or semi-divine figures without undermining monotheism.

In this article, I argue that three main features of Genesis 18 support interpreting the visitors as divine council / spiritual beings whose presence reflects a partial or mediated theophany — a visible manifestation of the divine.

1. Narrative Identification: YHWH’s Presence and Angelic Agency

A compelling reason to view the visitors as more than ordinary humans lies in the narrator’s framing. The episode opens with the statement: “The LORD appeared to Abraham…” (Heb. vay-yēra’ YHWH), immediately associating the visit with a divine theophany. Yet Abraham sees three men (Genesis 18:1–2), and later two of these continue on to Sodom where they are explicitly called angels (mal’akim) in Genesis 19:1.

This interplay — singular divine presence and plural visitors — invites careful interpretation. One scholarly option is that one visitor functions as the theophanic presence of YHWH, while the other two represent heavenly agents operating within God’s divine court. The text makes this distinction narratively: the LORD speaks covenantal promises (e.g., the birth of Isaac) through one figure, while the others carry out a related mission (going on to Sodom to investigate its wickedness).

In broader divine council imagery, heavenly messengers are often depicted as “standing in the presence of YHWH” or “coming from the assembly of the holy ones” — reflecting a hierarchical divine order in which God presides but heavenly beings act as His representatives. The Job 1–2 and 1 Kings 22 scenes illustrate this pattern in other texts.

Thus, the narrative structure — singular divine announcement and plural agents — coheres with a council model wherein God interacts with humanity through a cohort of spiritual beings rather than appearing directly in full divine essence. This feeds into a mediated theophany: God is present and speaks through a heavenly agent while supported by others.

2. Theophany and “Visible Gods” in Ancient Israelite Context

A second argument arises from ancient Near Eastern and Israelite perceptions of heavenly beings. In the wider Ancient Near East, divine assemblies — councils of gods — were a common motif in narrative and ritual texts. Israelite religion, while monotheistic in its affirmation of YHWH as the supreme God, nevertheless shows evidence of a heavenly host or divine council assembly through passages that portray heavenly beings in council or in service to God. Psalm 82’s “God stands in the divine assembly” imagery suggests that Israelite tradition could conceive of spiritual beings subordinate to Yahweh but active in the divine realm.

Scholars like Michael Heiser and others have argued that such divine council imagery underlies many biblical narratives — not as evidence of polytheism, but as part of a biblical supernatural worldview in which God’s rule over cosmic order is mediated by spiritual beings. These beings can interact with the human sphere while remaining subordinate to Yahweh’s authority.

In this light, the three “men” of Genesis 18 resemble members of the divine council or heavenly host coming to execute God’s will: announcing covenantal blessing and assessing impending judgment. Their behavior — eating food, communicating with Abraham, and then departing — mirrors other divine council appearances where demons or angels take on human form in narrative. This fits more naturally with cosmic hierarchical imagery than with a purely anthropomorphic deity walking about in ordinary human guise.

3. Theophany Features: Speech, Authority, and Human Response

Finally, the theophanic qualities of the encounter support reading the visitors as divine or heavenly figures rather than mere mortals. Key elements include:

  1. Divine Speech and Promise: One visitor speaks as YHWH, using Yahweh’s own name and authority in promising a son to Abraham and Sarah — a hallmark of divine speech rather than angelic proclamation alone.
  2. Human Worship and Interaction: Abraham’s actions — bowing, addressing them in the singular as “my lord,” and engaging in covenant dialogue — reflect recognition of divine presence, not merely polite reception of guests.
  3. Discrepancy Between Appearance and Ontology: The visitors appear as ordinary humans but are operationally supernatural. Two are later identified as angels in Sodom, while the third remains as Yahweh’s representative in dialogue with Abraham. This layered identity — human-like appearance, divine speech, and angelic mission — is consistent with other biblical theophanies where God appears in human form (e.g., to Manoah’s parents in Judges 13).

These features suggest a mediated theophany: God reveals Himself in a way that humans can encounter (visible visitors) while maintaining divine otherness. The narrative’s emphasis on hospitality, promise, and accountability underscores the encounter’s theological gravity, not merely its moral exemplarity.

Conclusion

Genesis 18’s three visitors resist simple categorization as either mundane travelers or strictly anthropomorphic God. Instead, multiple narrative and theological signals point to an interaction with divine or heavenly figures that function within a divine council motif:

  1. The text’s framing blends YHWH’s presence with angelic agency, matching divine council hierarchies.
  2. Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern contexts include heavenly hosts and councils under God’s sovereignty.
  3. Theophany features — authoritative speech, human reverence, and heavenly mission — reflect mediated divine encounter.

Thus, reading these visitors as divine council beings who participate in God’s cosmic governance and interact with Abraham offers a cohesive interpretive lens. It respects textual complexity, aligns with broader biblical imagery, and highlights the significance of this pivotal covenantal moment.

Selected Bibliography

Primary Text

  • The Holy Bible, Genesis 18–19 (Hebrew text and major English translations)

Articles and Online Resources

Secondary Scholarly Works

  • Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015.
  • Walton, John H. The Lost World of the Old Testament: Ancient Israelite Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2018.
  • Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  • Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
  • Collins, C. John. Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006 (esp. methodological notes on divine appearance).
  • Arnold, Bill T. Introduction to the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014 (sections on divine messengers and theophany).

Small Group Study Questions (Genesis 18)

Theological Implications
If the visitors are understood as divine council beings participating in a mediated theophany, how does this affect our understanding of God’s sovereignty, judgment (Genesis 18–19), and covenant faithfulness?

Textual Observation
Genesis 18:1 states that “the LORD appeared to Abraham,” yet Abraham sees three men. How does this tension between divine identification and human appearance shape your reading of the passage?

Divine Council Framework
Other biblical texts (e.g., Job 1–2; Psalm 82; 1 Kings 22) portray God presiding over heavenly beings. How might those passages help us understand the role of the three visitors in Genesis 18?

Theophany and Mediation
Why might God choose to appear through human-like figures or heavenly messengers rather than in an unmediated form? What does this suggest about God’s desire for relationship and accessibility?

Hospitality and Revelation
Abraham shows hospitality before fully understanding who his guests are. What connection does Genesis 18 make between faithful hospitality and divine revelation?

Healing Before Fruitfulness: Joseph’s Sons and a Theology of Restoration

Posted by expedition44 on

The Joseph narrative (Gen. 37–50) presents one of the Hebrew Bible’s most sustained reflections on suffering, providence, and restoration. Betrayed by his brothers and sold into slavery, Joseph experiences prolonged affliction through servitude, false accusation, and imprisonment before his elevation to authority in Egypt. This narrative arc is not merely biographical but theological, portraying divine sovereignty at work within, rather than apart from, human injustice.

A critical but often underexamined moment occurs prior to Joseph’s reconciliation with his brothers: the naming of his sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41:50–52). In the Hebrew Bible, naming frequently functions as a theological interpretation of lived experience, encoding meaning, memory, and confession. The narrator’s explicit preservation of Joseph’s naming explanations signals their interpretive importance.

Joseph names his firstborn Manasseh (מְנַשֶּׁה), declaring, “For God has made me forget (nashani) all my hardship and all my father’s house” (Gen. 41:51). The Hebrew root נשה (nashah), often translated “to forget,” does not imply amnesia or repression. Rather, within biblical and rabbinic usage, it conveys release from the dominating power of memory. Joseph’s past is not erased; it is rendered non-determinative. Rabbinic commentators emphasize that Joseph continues to remember his family and heritage, indicating that “forgetting” here refers to healing rather than denial.¹ This is a foreshadowing of a later theme of God holding no record of wrongs as an indicator of the way that His followers should also live.

Joseph’s second son is named Ephraim (אֶפְרָיִם), derived from the root פרה (parah, “to be fruitful”), accompanied by the declaration, “For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction” (Gen. 41:52). Notably, Egypt is still described as ’erets ‘onyi—“the land of my suffering.” Fruitfulness does not follow removal from affliction but emerges within it. The text thus resists any simplistic theology in which blessing is contingent upon the absence of suffering. It is a direct correlation to the Yahweh identifying Himself differently from the “other” ancient “gods” that functioned solely on the retribution principle.

The sequence of these names is theologically decisive. Healing (Manasseh) precedes fruitfulness (Ephraim), and both occur prior to forgiveness and reconciliation with Joseph’s brothers (Gen. 42–45). The narrative therefore distinguishes between inner restoration and relational restoration. While reconciliation ultimately requires repentance, truth-telling, and transformation on the part of the offenders, healing is portrayed as a divine act that does not depend upon the moral readiness of others. God’s restorative work in Joseph begins while the relational rupture remains unresolved.

This narrative logic challenges the assumption that closure or apology is a prerequisite for healing. Joseph’s story suggests instead that divine healing reorders the self, freeing one from the formative power of trauma and making space for generativity. Reconciliation, when it comes, is no longer a desperate need but a fruit of a healed identity.

Canonical Resonances: New Testament and Revelation

This pattern—healing preceding fruitfulness and reconciliation—finds resonance within the New Testament. Jesus’ invitation in Matthew 11:28 (“Come to me… and I will give you rest”) addresses interior restoration prior to the resolution of external conflict. Likewise, Paul’s theology of suffering in Romans 5:3–5 traces a movement from affliction to endurance, character, and hope—an internal transformation that precedes eschatological vindication.

In Revelation, similar logic governs the experience of the faithful. The saints are depicted as conquering (nikaō) not by escaping suffering but by faithful endurance within it (Rev. 12:11). The promises to the churches repeatedly emphasize fruitfulness, reigning, and restored vocation as outcomes of perseverance rather than prerequisites for divine favor (Rev. 2–3). Healing, symbolized by access to the tree of life and the wiping away of tears (Rev. 22:1–5; 21:4), is ultimately God’s work, accomplished even while injustice and opposition persist.

Within this broader canonical framework, Manasseh and Ephraim function as typological witnesses to a theology of restoration in which God heals before resolving every relational or historical wrong.

Healing is not the end of the story, but it is the condition that makes genuine fruitfulness—and ultimately reconciliation—possible.

Second Temple Jewish Parallels: Healing, Memory, and Fruitfulness in Exile

Second Temple Jewish literature provides important conceptual parallels to the pattern evident in Joseph’s naming of Manasseh and Ephraim, particularly with respect to memory, healing, and divine fruitfulness amid unresolved exile. These texts frequently wrestle with the problem of how God restores individuals and communities before historical or political reconciliation is complete.

In several Second Temple sources, remembering and forgetting function not as opposites but as theological tensions. Sirach, for example, acknowledges that past wounds are neither erased nor ignored, yet insists that wisdom enables one to live fruitfully without being governed by injury (Sir. 30:21–25). Here, healing is portrayed as an interior reordering that precedes external change—a conceptual parallel to Manasseh’s role as release from suffering’s formative power.

Similarly, the Wisdom of Solomon frames affliction as the context in which divine fruitfulness is cultivated rather than negated. The righteous are described as disciplined through suffering so that they might bear enduring fruit (Wis. 3:1–9), a logic that closely mirrors Ephraim’s naming as fruitfulness within the land of affliction. Vindication is future-oriented, but transformation occurs in the present.

The Dead Sea Scrolls further reinforce this pattern. In the Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns), the speaker repeatedly testifies to divine healing and restoration of the inner person while remaining socially marginalized and eschatologically unresolved (1QHᵃ). Healing precedes deliverance; identity is stabilized by God before historical redemption is realized. This reflects a theology in which God’s restorative work is not delayed until covenantal enemies are defeated or exile is reversed.

Of particular relevance is the Second Temple preoccupation with Joseph as a paradigmatic righteous sufferer. In works such as Joseph and Aseneth and later expansions of the Joseph tradition, Joseph is portrayed as morally transformed and divinely favored long before reconciliation with his brothers occurs. His interior faithfulness and divine blessing function independently of familial restoration, reinforcing the distinction between personal healing and relational reconciliation.

Moreover, Second Temple Israel broadly understood exile as an ongoing condition—even after the return from Babylon. Healing and fruitfulness were therefore conceptualized as provisional, anticipatory realities rather than final resolutions. This framework illuminates the theological significance of Manasseh and Ephraim: Joseph embodies a form of restored life that flourishes prior to—and apart from—the full repair of covenantal relationships.

Within this Second Temple horizon, Joseph’s sons function not merely as narrative details but as symbolic markers of how God restores the faithful amid incomplete redemption. Healing reorients memory; fruitfulness establishes vocation; reconciliation, when it comes, is a subsequent and contingent grace rather than the precondition of wholeness.

Conclusion

Joseph’s story reminds us that God’s work in our lives is often deeper—and earlier—than we expect. Long before reconciliation arrived, long before the family wounds were reopened and named, God had already begun healing Joseph’s heart. Manasseh testifies that God can loosen the grip of pain that once defined us. Ephraim bears witness that fruitfulness can emerge even in places we would never choose.

This matters for us because many of us are waiting. Waiting for an apology. Waiting for understanding. Waiting for relationships to be repaired. Joseph’s life gently but firmly tells us that healing does not have to wait. God is not constrained by unfinished stories or unresolved conflict. He is able to restore the inner life even when the outer circumstances remain broken.

That does not diminish the value of forgiveness or reconciliation—Scripture still calls us toward both. But it does free us from believing that our wholeness depends on someone else’s repentance. Healing is God’s gift, not the reward of closure.

So the invitation is simple and hopeful: bring the wound to God. Let Him name it, tend it, and release its power over you. Fruitfulness will come in time. But healing, as Joseph’s sons remind us, can begin now—even before the story is finished.

Footnote-Style References

  1. Rabbinic tradition: See Genesis Rabbah 91:1, which emphasizes that Joseph’s “forgetting” does not negate memory of his father or covenantal identity, but reflects relief from suffering’s grip.
  2. Lexical: Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), s.v. “נשה,” noting semantic range including release and neglect rather than cognitive loss.
  3. Narrative theology: Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation Commentary; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1982), 331–334.
  4. Suffering and fruitfulness: Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1989), 286–288.
  5. Naming as theological act: Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 47–62.
  6. Canonical resonance: Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: CUP, 1993), 84–102.
  7. Sirach: Ben Sira 30:21–25; see Michael W. Duggan, Sirach (New Collegeville Bible Commentary; Liturgical Press, 2016).
  8. Wisdom of Solomon: Wis. 3:1–9; see John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Westminster John Knox, 1997).
  9. Dead Sea Scrolls: Hodayot (1QHᵃ); see Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space (Brill, 2004).
  10. Joseph traditions: Joseph and Aseneth; see Ross Shepard Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph (Oxford University Press, 1998).
  11. Exile as ongoing condition: N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Fortress, 1992), 268–272 (used here for Second Temple Jewish worldview rather than NT theology).

Signs of Covenant Faithfulness

Posted by expedition44 on

1. Faith and Trust in God’s Word

At the heart of covenant faithfulness is trust in God Himself. Abraham “believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6). This pattern carries through Scripture: covenant faithfulness begins not with works, but with confident reliance on God’s promises (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17).

2. Obedience Flowing from Love

Obedience is not the covenant’s foundation but its fruit. Israel was called to walk in God’s ways because they already belonged to Him (Exod 19:4–6; Deut 6:4–6). Jesus echoes this covenant logic: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Faithfulness is lived out through responsive obedience.

3. Communion & Sabbath Rest

The Sabbath functions as a covenant sign of communion, trust and faithfulness (Exod 31:12–17). By resting, Israel confessed that their life and provision came from God, not their own labor. Sabbath-keeping embodied faith in God’s sustaining care and faithfulness.

Circumcision – Washing of Feet – Baptism – Communion

At first glance, practices such as circumcision, foot washing, baptism, and communion can feel foreign—even uncomfortable—to modern readers. Yet within the biblical story, they are deeply connected. Each functions as an embodied sign through which God teaches His people what covenant faithfulness, belonging, and transformation look like.

In the Old Testament, circumcision served as the covenant sign given to Abraham and his descendants (Gen 17:9–14). It marked the body and permanently reminded Israel that their identity and future depended entirely on God’s promise. It was not merely a ritual act, but a visible declaration that God creates life where human ability fails.

Foot washing appears in the Old Testament as an act of hospitality, humility, and purification (Gen 18:4; 19:2; 1 Sam 25:41). In a dusty world, washing another’s feet signaled welcome and relational submission. This cultural practice laid the groundwork for its deeper theological meaning in the New Testament.

Baptism emerges in continuity with Old Testament washing rites that symbolized cleansing and renewal (Exod 29:4; Lev 16:4; Ezek 36:25). These washings pointed forward to a more complete purification—one not merely of the body, but of the heart. In the New Testament, baptism becomes the covenant sign of union with Christ, symbolizing death to the old life and resurrection into new life (Rom 6:3–4).

Communion, like circumcision, is a covenant meal. It echoes the Passover, where Israel remembered God’s saving act through a shared, embodied practice (Exod 12). Jesus reframes this meal around Himself, declaring the bread and cup to be His body and blood—the means by which the New Covenant is established (Luke 22:19–20). Communion continually reorients the Church around Christ’s sacrificial faithfulness.

Foot washing reaches its theological climax when Jesus washes His disciples’ feet (John 13:1–17). In this act, Jesus unites cleansing, humility, and love. He demonstrates that covenant belonging in the New Testament is marked not by dominance or status, but by self-giving service. The act does not replace baptism or communion but interprets them: those who have been cleansed by Christ are called to live cleansed lives marked by humble love.

Together, these practices reveal a consistent biblical pattern. God teaches spiritual truths through physical actions. Covenant faithfulness is not abstract; it is embodied. Circumcision marked God’s people as recipients of divine promise. Washings prepared them for holy presence. Baptism unites believers to Christ’s death and resurrection. Communion sustains them through continual remembrance and participation in Christ’s life.

What seems strange to modern culture is, in Scripture, profoundly intentional. From Genesis to the Gospels, God forms His people through signs that engage the body, the community, and the memory—shaping not only what they believe, but how they live.

Diving deeper into Circumcision

Communion functions in the New Covenant in ways that closely parallel how circumcision functioned in the Old Covenant. In the Old Testament, circumcision was the covenant sign given to Abraham and his household (Gen 17:9–14). It did not create the covenant; rather, it marked those who belonged to it. Circumcision identified a person as part of God’s covenant people and continually pointed back to God’s promise to bring life where human ability had failed.

Similarly, communion does not establish the New Covenant but bears witness to it. At the Last Supper, Jesus identified the cup as “the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). Each time believers participate in the Lord’s Supper, they are visibly and repeatedly reminded that their life with God is grounded not in their own faithfulness, but in Christ’s sacrificial death.

Both circumcision and communion are physical, embodied signs of spiritual realities. Circumcision marked the body and permanently reminded Israel that their existence depended on God’s miraculous promise. Communion involves tangible elements—bread and wine—that engage the body and senses, proclaiming that the Church’s life flows from Christ’s broken body and shed blood (1 Cor 11:26).

Both signs are also communal and covenantal, not merely private. Circumcision incorporated individuals into a covenant people, shaping their identity and responsibilities. In the same way, communion is a shared meal that proclaims unity in Christ’s body (1 Cor 10:16–17). Participation affirms belonging to the covenant community and submission to its Lord.

Finally, both signs call for faithful response and self-examination. Circumcision without covenant loyalty was condemned by the prophets (Jer 4:4). Likewise, Paul warns against receiving communion in an unworthy manner, detached from repentance and love for the body of Christ (1 Cor 11:27–29). In both cases, the sign points beyond itself to a life of faithful trust and obedience.

In short, circumcision marked Israel as a people created by God’s promise, while communion continually re-centers the Church on the saving work of Christ. Different signs, same covenant logic: God gives a visible marker to remind His people who they are, how they were redeemed, and upon whom their life depends.

Circumcision appears nearly one hundred times in Scripture and plays an important role in both Old and New Testament theology (Rom 4:9–12; Gal 2:1–12; 5:1–10). At first glance, this emphasis can seem strange. Yet Scripture treats circumcision as a serious theological symbol, not a mere cultural practice.

In Genesis 17, circumcision is given as the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham. However, it was not unique to Israel. Many peoples in the ancient Near East practiced circumcision, including Israel’s neighbors (Jer 9:25–26), as well as cultures in Egypt, Syria, and Phoenicia. Historical and archaeological evidence shows that circumcision existed long before Israel emerged as a nation. This suggests that circumcision alone did not set Israel apart from surrounding nations.

What made circumcision distinctive was not the act itself, but the promise attached to it. When God commanded Abraham to be circumcised, Abraham was beyond the age of fathering children, and Sarah was past childbearing years (Gen 18:11). Yet God promised that through Sarah, Abraham would have an innumerable offspring (Gen 17:21; 18:14). The covenant, therefore, depended entirely on God’s miraculous intervention.

Circumcision marked the household of Abraham as participants in a promise that could only be fulfilled by God. At the time, the meaning of this sign may not have been fully clear. Its significance became evident when Isaac was born. That birth confirmed that Israel’s existence was not the result of human strength, but of divine faithfulness.

From that moment on, circumcision served as a lasting reminder that Israel owed its life to the Lord. It pointed back to the miracle that brought the people into being and continually reinforced their dependence on God’s covenant grace.

In the New Testament, circumcision no longer defines membership in God’s people. As Paul teaches, belonging to God’s family is no longer marked by a physical sign, but by faith in Christ (Gal 5:6). Paul even links circumcision to baptism (Col 2:10–12), showing that both are covenant signs grounded in faith. In Christ, God’s people—men and women alike—are marked not by the body, but by trust in the saving work of God.

CONCLUSION

Biblical covenant faithfulness is God’s work of creating and sustaining a people through promise, and the faithful response of that people lived out in embodied trust and obedience. From the Old Testament to the New, God marks His covenant not merely with ideas, but with visible, physical signs—circumcision, washings, baptism, and communion—that remind His people that their life comes from Him alone. These signs do not create the covenant; they testify to it, pointing beyond themselves to God’s saving action. Covenant faithfulness, therefore, is trusting God’s promise, receiving His cleansing and provision, remembering His saving work, and living humbly and obediently as His redeemed people.

GENESIS 17 AND THE COVENANT

Posted by expedition44 on

From the beginning, Scripture uses marriage as a central metaphor for the deep intimacy God desires with His people. It is the closest human image of the nearness and unity God longs to share with us. This is why Christ describes the church as His bride, expressing His desire for a relationship with His body. Throughout the Old Testament, God continually pursues His people, making a way back to them even when they break covenant. The central theme of the entire narrative of the Bible is God’s desire to intimately dwell with us.

Many can recall moments in their marriage when everything seemed perfectly aligned—when joy was intense and love felt effortless. Those moments are gifts, brief glimpses of heaven touching earth. They reflect, in part, the kind of covenantal intimacy God desires with His people and with a husband and wife together: a union strengthened as a cord of three strands, bound by God Himself.

As I write, my wife and children are on a mission trip, and I’m home alone for the first time in nearly 25 years of marriage. It feels strange. There are some benefits—quiet, a clean house, no hectic evenings or morning routines—but the house feels empty. I miss my family. With extra time on my hands, I find myself remembering the best moments of our life together. Even in the hard times, we shared joy. I don’t know how I will handle empty nesting when that day comes, but this short season alone has helped me re-gather what is most dear.

I think every marriage could benefit from that kind of intentional pause. As my time apart grows, I’m becoming more purposeful in praying for them, thinking about what I want to emphasize when they return and what truly defines our family. I’m asking: What is God doing in our lives, and where have we missed His plan?

In Genesis 17, God renames Abram and Sarai as Abraham and Sarah, marking a defining moment in the covenant. These name changes are not merely symbolic but carry deep theological, linguistic, and cultural meaning. While Abraham’s renaming often receives greater attention, Sarah’s change is equally significant, affirming her essential role as matriarch within God’s covenant promises.

The name אַבְרָם (Avram) means “exalted father.” In Genesis 17:5, God changes his name to אַבְרָהָם (Avraham), meaning “father of a multitude,” expanding his identity to encompass many nations. This shift highlights the covenant’s widened scope.

I realize most of my readers will not know Hebrew but look closely at the differences in the Hebrew spelling. The added letter ה (he) is significant. It appears in God’s name Yahweh (יהוה), symbolizing divine presence and creative power. Its inclusion marks God’s direct involvement in Abraham’s calling and, in Hebraic tradition, echoes the five books of the Torah, linking Abraham to God’s covenantal law. Even the sound of the name changes: the sharp ending of Avram gives way to the openness of Avraham, reflecting his transformation from a local patriarch into a figure of global promise. The same change happens with Sarai. The names שָׂרָי (Sarai) and שָׂרָה (Sarah) share the root שָׂר (sar), meaning “ruler” or “princess,” and both convey strength and authority. Sarai likely means “my princess,” with the possessive ending tying her role closely to Abraham’s household. Sarah, without that ending, signals a broader calling. Like Abraham, Sarah receives the letter ה (he), associating her name with God’s blessing and promise. Her renaming reveals her identity not merely as Abraham’s wife but as a matriarch of nations and kings. The shift from י (yod) to ה (he) reflects this expansion—from a limited, familial role to a universal one—while the softer sound of Sarah mirrors the widening scope of her influence. Essentially, both names are changed by simply adding the Hebrew letter that signifies God Himself residing in them.

Today we have the advantage of seeing the Bible in its full narrative, but Abraham and Sarah did not. They did not fully understand God’s unfolding plan, which is why Scripture highlights their remarkable faith. Genesis 17 is one of the earliest indications of God’s desire to dwell within His people. In a powerful way, the name changes of Abraham and Sarah symbolize God’s presence being placed within them.

Yet the story is not complete without Jesus. Regardless of which atonement theory one holds, we all agree that Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, enthronement, and the sending of the Spirit are essential to fulfill what began with that simple name change. In Christ, we see the ultimate fulfillment of God dwelling in us—not merely as a promise, but as a reality.

This is why the New Testament speaks so clearly about being “dead to self” and alive in Christ. Paul writes that our old self was crucified with Him so that sin might be rendered powerless (Romans 6:4–7). We are called to put off the old self and put on the new, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:22–24). “I have been crucified with Christ,” Paul declares, “and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20). This transformation is not merely moral improvement but a radical renewal: we are no longer conformed to the world but transformed by the renewing of our minds (Colossians 3:10). Indeed, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

These passages show that the promise of God dwelling within us, first hinted at in Abraham and Sarah’s name changes, finds its full expression in Christ—where the old self is crucified and the new self is born. Perhaps today you need to consider inserting the ה into your names together!

He (pronounced in English as hey) ה is the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The letter ה (he) is formed from a ד (dalet) and a י (yud). The dalet, composed of horizontal and vertical lines, represents the physical world—its breadth and height, material space and structure. The yud, the small detached element, symbolizes God and the spiritual realm. Together, they form the heh, expressing the union of the material and the divine. In this way, God calls those in whom He dwells to sanctify the physical world by filling it with spirituality and Godliness. We are His ambassadors, sent to reclaim creation and restore the holiness lost when humanity left Eden.

The top horizontal line of the ה represents thought and points toward equality. From the beginning, God’s design for male and female reflects this equality, though it was fractured at the Fall. Still, we are called to restore God’s ideal. In the future renewed creation, equality and righteousness will be fully realized. Yet the horizontal line that unites Abraham and Sarah may suggest that God’s ideal can begin to take shape even now, sooner than we often expect. God’s ideal plan is for a husband and wife to edify one another in unison.

The debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism often depends on how key biblical passages are interpreted. Some verses emphasize equality in creation, while others appear to assign distinct roles for men and women in the church. Commonly cited texts include Genesis 1:27, Galatians 3:28, 1 Timothy 2:11–15, and 1 Corinthians 14. I will revisit some of these later, but regardless of where you land, I believe we can agree that when we humbly live out our callings with God at the center, the debate becomes less crucial, and the outcomes are remarkably similar. These passages are frequently used by both sides, but their meaning depends heavily on context, audience, and intended purpose. Evaluating them requires careful consideration of the broader biblical narrative.

So much of this conversation can be seen in the Hebrew Grammar of this passage. In the ה, the shorter, detached left leg represents action. Its separation highlights the difficulty of translating right thoughts and words into deeds. The gap reminds us that action requires effort and intention. Without action, thought and speech remain incomplete—leaving only the dalet, symbolizing spiritual emptiness.

As the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, ה has traditionally been linked to the five levels of the soul—nefesh, ruach, neshamah, chayah, and yechidah. In Hebrew thought, these elements tend to represent who a person “really” is. The fifth tier, yechidah, signifies union and represents the deepest part of the soul. This level is often described as the pintele Yid, the indestructible divine spark within every image bearer. It is a spark that can never be extinguished or corrupted, and it remains the eternal bond that unites us with God. The pintele Yid is also the source of mesirat nefesh, or self-sacrifice. When Christ takes up dwelling in us, we should take on Christ’s sense of humble self-sacrifice (Romans 12:1). The bond between a Christian and God is intrinsic and unbreakable, anchored in the pintele Yid.

Her first name Sarai in Hebrew (שָׂרַי, “my princess”), meant princess and could have denoted her as an Egyptian princess which Gen 12:11-20 might allude to; but later she is *renamed by the Lord because of her faith as Sarah (שָׂרָה, which also meant “princess”, but is slightly different. In Hebrew text also has a number correlation and often means something. This is a form of numerology. Regarding Sarah’s name change, the Yod (whose numerical value is 10) was “taken” from Sarai and divided into two Heys (whose numerical value is 5). Half was given (by God) to form the name Sarah and the other half was given to form the name Abraham (from Abram). The implication was that she was already “whole” or “complete” which later is described by Jesus as “perfection” being what believers can attain to in the way they are made new in Christ. In this thinking, Abraham was not complete and needed something from her to be returned to the complete or equal state. There is a sense of “reversing hermon” going on here if you speak that language. It is a reverse of the God taking something from Adam to make Eve; for Abraham to be reinstated, Sarah would have to give something from herself. That is why if you don’t read this in Hebrew you can’t truly understand the implications of Hebrews 11 and why Sarah is actually considered “THE” true heroine of faith (Heb. 11:11) and Abraham isn’t mentioned. Is your mind blown yet? Essentially, at this point in the Timeline what God was attempting to accomplish in Sarah was to re-establish the royal priesthood that had been lost in the fall. Perhaps she thought Issac was the one that would bring life, and perhaps that was God’s plan that men then continued to mess up. The woman began the fall, but man has sustained it. Together in covenant relationship through a strand of three cords we can restore it, but will we get there and when?

(The above paragraph is an excerpt from an earlier x44 post. If you haven’t read the PART 1 and 2 of the Expedition 44 posts of the Akedah or binding of Isaac, you may want to read those posts. You can find them using the search bar to the upper right of this post.)

The renaming of Abraham and Sarah reveals them as equal partners in God’s covenant. Although Abraham often receives greater attention, Genesis 17 clearly affirms Sarah’s central role. God’s promise that she would be “a mother of nations” and that “kings of peoples shall come from her” parallels Abraham’s calling, showing that she fully shares in the covenant. Both receiving the letter ה underscores their shared participation in God’s blessing and purpose.

This shared status challenges ancient cultural norms that minimized women’s significance. By renaming Sarah and granting her covenantal promises, God elevates her beyond the domestic sphere. Her name, “princess” (שָׂרָה), signals real authority—later demonstrated in decisive moments such as the sending away of Hagar and Ishmael (Gen 21:10–12).

Sarah’s renaming is especially powerful because she was barren (Genesis 11:30). In her time, not having children was a source of shame, but God turns her from an outsider to a mother of nations. Her laughter in Genesis 18:12, often considered doubt, can also show her surprise at God’s bold promise—a barren woman giving birth to kings. This shows how God picks unlikely people, like Moses or David, to do great things.

Sarah’s influence goes beyond Israel. In Galatians 4:22–31, Paul calls her the mother of the “children of promise,” contrasting her with Hagar. In 1 Peter 3:6, she’s a model of faith. Her name, שָׂרָה, becomes a symbol of strength and hope. Some would even deduce from these passages that she might even be credited with greater faith than Abraham.

There are many deeper details in this text that I won’t address here, but the central theme from Genesis to Revelation is clear: God desires to dwell within us. He wants our marriages to be holy and intimate, reflecting—but never fully replacing—our deepest union with Him. What would a marriage look like if the distractions and compromises of the world were set aside, and a couple pursued the purpose God always intended for them? This is the heart of what it means to be in Covenant with the almighty God. That we may be fully devoted to image Him as He resides in us. And your marriage partner is God’s gift of grace to this plan.

THE DIFFICULTY OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE BIBLE IN A MODERN ERA

Posted by expedition44 on

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.

  1. https://biblehub.com/q/what_does_the_bible_say_on_homosexuality.htm ↩︎
  2. Joyce, Paul M. (2009). Ezekiel: A Commentary. Continuum. ISBN 9780567483614. ↩︎
  3. Eisenberg, Ronald (2005), The 613 Mitzvot: A Contemporary Guide to the Commandments of Judaism, Schreiber Publishing, ISBN 0-88400-303-5 ↩︎
  4. Massey, Lesly F. (2015). Daughters of God, Subordinates of Men: Women and the Roots of Patriarchy in the New Testament. McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-4766-2143-2. ↩︎
  5. Coogan, Michael (October 2010). God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. ↩︎
  6. 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.” ↩︎
  7. Meirowitz, Sara N.S. (2009). “Not Like a Virgin: Talking about Nonmarital Sex”. In Ruttenberg, Danya (ed.). The Passionate Torah: Sex and Judaism. NYU Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-8147-7605-6. ↩︎
  8. 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. ISBN 978-0-8147-7605-6. 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. ↩︎
  9.  “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 ↩︎
  10. https://reknew.org/2012/10/homosexuality-and-the-church-finding-a-third-way/ ↩︎

Is Israel Still God’s Chosen people?

Posted by expedition44 on

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.

  1. 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.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Replacement-theology ↩︎

Seminary Discipleship

Posted by expedition44 on

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.  

Written by Dr. Will Ryan and Paul Lazzaroni

The Journey… here and now (TAKE 2)

Posted by expedition44 on

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.

 time – treasure – talent – testimony

Posted by expedition44 on

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION:

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.

To set up recurring payments on Venmo, follow these steps

  1. Open the Venmo app and log in to your account.
  2. Access the “Settings” menu and find the “Payments” or “Payment Methods” option.
  3. Look for the “Recurring Payments” or “Automatic Payments” section and select it.
  4. Choose the frequency and dates for the payment (monthly, weekly, or bi-weekly).
  5. Confirm the payment amount and select “Schedule Payment”