Tag Archives: bible

King David and Donald Trump? Maybe more than you realize, but that’s not good for anyone!

Posted by expedition44 on

If you haven’t read this article on King David, Start here.

There is a lot about this popular 2024 post-election MEME that doesn’t sit well with me.

DAVID AS A PURE HEARTED PERSON

To be clear, I do think David had a heart postured after the Lord in his youth before he became king. I LOVE young David and the writings of his heart. They are some of my favorite parts of the Bible and have motivated me to be more holy than likely any other texts in the Bible. I do believe he was one that God intended to use to return all of Israel and eventually the world to be reconciled back to Yahweh. David seemed to have a heart postured towards the Lord in his early days, but the power, the lust, the flesh and the pride of life not only led him way, but likely all of Israel away from the LORD. David was “chosen” by God to be His tool to bring redemption back but accomplished the opposite.

He became the anti-hero of the world’s doing rather than the hero that God intended him to be.

As I have made the statement previously, I do not feel that a faithful reading of the Hebrew in 1 Sam 13:14 says that “David had a heart after God’s own heart” per the usual interpretation. John Walton convinced me that the expression doesn’t describe the inclination of the king but describes the sovereign choice of God. The claim is not that David pursues the heart of God as a spiritually mature person rather than pursuing his own ends; instead, David is the man that God has pursued with his own criteria in mind rather than Saul, who was someone who met the criteria of the people. It is a statement about God’s sovereignty, not about David’s spirituality or piety. John Walton has alluded then that it is therefore not something that we can aspire to in our own lives, and I would agree. Eventually David becomes the very image of Israel, fallen and completely idolatrous. To most theologians he is the Biblical archetype of the one who was intended by God to bring Israel back to Yahweh yet accomplished the exact opposite and led Israel away from God towards utter sinfulness and idolatry giving weight to the powers and principalities that had overtaken the rest of the ancient world at that time.

WAS DAVID REPENTANT?

David, when confronted with sin does sometimes seem authentically repentant (Psalm 51; 2 Sam 12:13-20), but then often continues to go on sinning. That isn’t the fruit of a truly repentant heart. In most cases if someone committed murder and said they repented but then goes on to do it again, I think we would come to the conclusion they didn’t genuinely repent when they said they did. Which seems actually worse; to put on a show of repentance (in the name of the LORD) but not really have a heart of repentance. It’s just an act.

DAVID AS A WARLORD

Scholars debate whether David’s destructive actions represent justice or unnecessary power mongerering. Did he feel “commissioned by God” in his somewhat empirical pursuit that started with Canaan or did this become a push for personal power and fame? Some argue David was playing the part of God’s hand of retributive justice, others criticize David for excessive continual violence opposite to that which God had sanctioned. Either way, much of it seemed contrary to God’s ways. Some try to justify the actions saying it was simply the culture, but I don’t see that theologically, as it seemed quite contrary to the character of God and what He had given them in the law. It seems David was doing what David wanted, not what Yahweh wanted. David’s kingship paints a picture of a powerful warlord who engaged in much bloodshed to establish and maintain control of the kingdom of Israel.

Here is a snapshot of those David personally killed or had killed:

  • Goliath 1 Samuel 17:49-51
  • Goliaths Brothers. David chose five smooth stones because Goliath had four brothers based on 2 Samuel 21:15–22. That passage lists four very large Philistines who were related to Goliath in some way: Ishbi-benob, Saph, Goliath, and an unnamed giant with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. “These four were born to the giant in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants” (2 Samuel 21:22).
  • When David heard the news about Saul and Jonathan’s deaths from an Amalekite messenger, he had the man executed (2 Samuel 1:1-16).
  • Baanah and Rechab presented Ish-Bosheth’s head to David hoping for a reward. However, David ordered them killed.
  • After becoming king, David executed seven of Saul’s sons. (2 Samuel 21:1-14)

THE WAR MONGERER

There are some tell tale signs of David’s movement away from God, this will surprise many, but David had served as a mercenary soldier for the Philistine king of Gath (see 1 Samuel 27:2-4), it took seven years of fighting for David (who had been anointed King of Judah) to defeat Saul’s son Ishbosheth and establish the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah in c.1004 BC (see 2 Samuel 2:8-11, 3:1-39 & 4:1-12). David quickly consolidated his position by capturing the Canaanite city of Jebus (Jerusalem) and establishes his new capital there, the City of David (2 Samuel 5:6-10). Having agreed on an alliance with the Phoenician king of Tyre (see 2 Samuel 5:11), David was able to turn against his former patrons, the Philistines, and defeat them in the Valley of Rephaim (see 2 Samuel 5:17-2). Over the next few years, David succeeded in completely subjugating the Philistines and taking control of the southern coastal plain cities of Gaza, Gath, Ashkelon, Ashdod and Ekron (see 2 Samuel 8:1). Any red flags yet?

As I mention earlier, David’s son, Solomon, seemed to follow closely in David’s ways (or be used by him) and was able to complete the downfall of the Philistines by negotiating a dynastic marriage with the Egyptian pharaoh Haremheb’s daughter in c.970BC (see 1 Kings 3:1) and taking on the role of Egypt’s former ally. By building a chariot city at Gezer to defend the trading route from Egypt to Syria and Mesopotamia he was able to secure the support and protection of Egypt – one of the ‘superpowers’ of his day (see 1 Kings 10.26-27). Any other red flags?

Meanwhile, David had turned his attention to the northern frontier, and in an amazing series of military campaigns beyond the River Jordan, succeeded in defeating the people of Moab, the Arameans of Damascus, the Syrian King of Zobah, and the Edomites in the Valley of Salt (near the Dead Sea) (2 Samuel 8:1-14). In just under thirty years, David had succeeded in transforming a small kingdom in the central highlands of Judaea into a major empire stretching from the border of Egypt to the lowlands of Mesopotamia. In the process did he trade God’s kingdom for a personal pursuit of power and fame?

As you can see, this is a lot of bloodshed. 30 years of continual bloodshed. There is a good deal of deceit and lies between rulers and intermarriage. Idolatry was rampant. He named a city after himself and countless other things that seem to point back qualities that are rival to Yahweh, not in alignment with God but rather self serving initiatives.

THE RAPE OF BATHSHEEBA

Well into this bloodbath we read the story of Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11:1-27 during the siege of Rabbah (Amman) in c.997BC. I have made the statement a few times that I wouldn’t leave my kids alone in the same room with the “David of latter life” and this story is one of the reasons why. By 2 Samuel 5 God seems to still be with him, but within a few short chapters (2 Samuel 12) the LORD was not pleased with David because of his sin and neglect for God’s holiness and sends the prophet Nathan to confront him. You may have never considered the whole “Bathsheba problem.” As we examine the details, we see that it is actually sexual abuse of power, in other words, rape. Neither the text nor the context supports the conclusion that it was an affair between two consenting adults. People who think Bathsheba seduced David by bathing outside his window may not realize the Hebrew verb rachats, used for Bathsheba’s action here (2 Samuel 11:2), literally means “wash” which is how it is translated elsewhere in this narrative (2 Sam. 11:8; 12:20). There is no reason to assume that Bathsheba was naked, or that she was aware that the king, who should have been with his army, would have been watching from his rooftop like a peeping Tom (2 Sam. 11:1-2). This “kingly” act was common in other cultures where evil ran rampant. It was a fatal sign that David was leading Israel to be more like the fallen pagan-evil nations around them than the “set apart under Yahweh nation” that was called to be holy unto the LORD. It was detestable to the LORD at many different levels.

David’s rape-adultery and murder is described biblically as “despising the word of God by doing what is evil,” and “total contempt for the Lord,” (2 Samuel 12:7-9). David’s rape-adultery, murder, and abuse of power was not rewarded by God with more power. It actually resulted in many consequences such as division and violence in his family and those he was leading. Also, it resulted in a child dying, and his denial to build the temple. God is no longer with him.

THE CONSEQUENCE OF SIN

The consequences of David’s sin are lasting and far-reaching. From Rape and incest with Amnon and Tamar, to the murder of Amnon by Absalom for the rape of his sister, the war among the Israelites leading to David fleeing Jerusalem in shame for fear of his life from his own son. We watch the downward spiral as eventually David is part of an illegitimate census that seemingly stirs the anger of the Lord against the Israelites and seventy thousand Israelites die from a pestilence allowed (and perhaps caused) by the LORD. David was a violent man in a violent world, a polygamist, an adulterer, and a murderer. There just isn’t any way to avoid seeing that if we read and believe the Bible. The progression in David’s sin reveals a callousing of his heart.

It has always seemed strange to me that the mainstream church doesn’t want to read the text as it is both plainly and deeply read here. It is as if they are covering him up and putting him on a pedestal. This is in part why the modern evangelical church has trust issues. Doing this seems so contrary to the character of God – attempting to cover up continued evil acts and promote David into something that God approves of. That isn’t the intention of the text nor a faithful rendering of it.

GOD’S FAVOR AND SPIRIT LEFT DAVID AND ISRAEL

As in the wilderness the cloud signified the Spirit of the Lord coming and going, we see that after Israel went on a bloodthirsty empirical pursuit led by King David, the spirit of the LORD is no longer with them which Nathan warned. One way to see this is to harmonize the Psalms. A theologically daunting task is to figure out when David wrote the Psalms. When you do this and carefully read them, I will challenge you to discover that after the encounter with Bathsheba the Lord was no longer with him, or perhaps looking onto him with favor. There are times we read from David’s perspective of crying out to the Lord, but it comes from a sort of tone of a drunk alcoholic asking why their friends have left them, which is likely exactly what it is. David wrote 73 of the 150 Psalms in the Bible, and carefully studying the ones he wrote and the dating of them will help you see what I propose in terms of his downward spiral taking Israel down with him in terms of a spiritual nation.

HARMONIZING THE PSALMS & HERMENEUTICS

After the death of Absolom if you harmonize the scriptural narrative (2 Samuel, 1 Kings, and 1 Chronicles) with the Psalms this is what we find. Remember a great part of theology is in determining the narrative. What are the voices? What is simply the story given for our interpretation and where is God in it. What do we read as being the thoughts of the characters involved, verses how God may have viewed the ongoings. That is as much for our interpretation as the red letters are, but the red letters are decisively clearer. Too many people read the entire Bible as a “thus saith the Lord” statement rather than understanding the literary narrative as it is presented. Not understanding the voices in the text has led many towards poor theology. It is vital for literary scholarship to apply literary criticism and textures of interpretative law to the narratives of the Bible for faithful reading.

2Sam 21 Famine and Gibeonites → Ps 29, 65
Last war with Philistines → Ps 36
2Sam 22 Song of deliverance → Ps 18, 144
2Sam 24 David dedicates Temple → Ps 30, 33, 131 (32)
1Kings 1 Solomon anointed King → Ps 47
1Chr 28 David‘s address → Ps 145
Concerning building Temple → Ps 104, 133, 86
1Chr 29 David‘s Thanksgiving Prayer → Ps 72
2Sam 23 David‘s last words → Ps 37 (138)

If you care to dive in deeper, Don Stewart and Blue Letter Bible have a rather deep post on this here. As I don’t agree with BLB on several topics, I do respect their mission and believe they are doing good things. I think what they have given us here is a worthy tool.

Again, I will challenge you to read the narrative. Where is God in it? He isn’t there any longer. The spirit has left the encampment.

Coming back to the meme…

We are not called to celebrate or try to “be like David” or even celebrate those who act like him, we are called to be like Jesus. And yes, Jesus works through fallen people but usually the ones on the road to transparent sanctification, not the ones that continue to live in sin. David’s story is a man who started out well and did not end well. He still carried a warring and vengeful spirit into the grave. From His kingship to death, we have a person that possibly had a chance to do more for God than any other person yet failed miserably accomplishing the near opposite leading Israel into idolatry that would give way to a return to slavery in exile. On his death bed he asked Solomon to kill Shimei, who confronted David on his bloodshed and abuse of power. (1 King 2:9, 2 Sam 16:8).

If you are making illusions that President trump resembles King David, well you might be right; but you’re actually making a statement more for Trump being far removed from God than you are that He is aligned with God. I hope that is not the case. My heart is that Trump as president is aligned with God not “rival” to Him as we see David was.

However, this isn’t all negative. I like the way the Bible project frame’s the early life of David. Jesus saw his role as Israel’s messiah was to patiently wait for God to exalt him as king, just like David waited. He anticipated persecution from his own people would come, just as it did for David. The stories about David provided the template of Jesus’ messianic vocation, and they epitomized the upside-down value system of God’s kingdom that Jesus was always talking about. It’s a kingdom where the poor and persecuted are the most exalted, and the powerless are God’s chosen ones (go and re-read the famous beatitudes in Matthew 5:1-7 and think about them in light of the story of David). When Jesus read the stories of David, it wasn’t to learn interesting facts about Israel’s history. Like the prophets, Jesus read His Bible as a prophetic history that was pointing towards the future hope of the messianic Kingdom of God. These stories about David were designed to foster that very hope, in Jesus’ day, and in our own.

But there was also a double meaning as Jesus often implied with such amazing rabbinical tact, there was a contranym within the narrative. David led Israel away from God and Jesus would lead the entire world back to God. It was the anti-hero next to the real hero. Luckily, we don’t need to make David into something he wasn’t a lifelong great pillar of faith – we have Jesus. David’s story and writings still gives us a great deal to glean from. Keep your eyes focused on Him and learn what you can from the rest of the story! The world wanted another Warlord David type to overthrow Rome, but instead they got a lamb to the slaughter. This is Jesus!

Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Matt Mouzakis.

2024 KINGDOM SERIES PT 1 VOTING

Posted by expedition44 on

You have been told your entire life that good Christians should “do their job” and vote. That is the mainstream evangelical Christian view. However, everyone knows “that guy” who seems to be a great Jesus follower and has either totally politically checked out to go live like a monk or perhaps has just convinced himself that the way of the cross isn’t to become “overly” politically aligned as a Christian. To most in the first category the second two positions may also seem “un-Christian.” Nilay Saiya in his global politics of Jesus [1] describes these three positions as the Patriot position or Christianism believing it is your biblical responsibility to vote (7 mountain mandate type of thinking), the second position he describes as the pietists position or detachment such as the first century Essene community; and the last being that of the prophetic witness position describing more of an exilic position of speaking truth passively as a witness. Perhaps there is a time, a calling, or season for all three in your life dependent on each specific situation and your personal position, but as with most issues pertaining to our modern lives, the word of God is not silent here. Let’s see what it says.

Global Christianity – What we all agree on

As with all x44 articles the intended audience here is those that are “all in” for Jesus. For the most part here is what the all in community agrees on. Jesus inaugurated a new kingdom and set apart nation. There is nothing that Jesus talked about. After his resurrection and victory over death on the cross, Jesus assumed the throne in the heavens and sent His spirit to dwell in us. This kingdom is here and now as well as described as coming (eschatologically.) To be clear, the Bible treats this kingdom as a rival kingdom to the other kingdoms of the world using phrases like, “you can’t serve two masters.” The definition given of those that are not in alignment with this ideology is that of “an enemy” to His kingdom even describing some that claim to be His followers as lukewarm unequivocally stating that “He never knew you,” which seemingly describes those that do not follow his commands to leave their formal world behind and live in complete devotion to Him. As strange or counter cultural as it may be, the hope of this kingdom is that the “enemies” might be reconciled by these “good neighbors faithful to Jesus” and eventually won over and shepherded into obedience into the Jesus kingdom. We are told eschatologically that Jesus will eventually wipe away all the other kingdoms of the world. In this nation Christ alone is King.

To those in the original intended first century audience this word certainly would have been received as traitorous and blasphemy towards the Roman empire and the emperor, which is (in part), why Jesus was crucified and explains the sign over his head. Nevertheless, entering into the Kingdom and coming into belief in and agreement with the terms of the king is how salvation is achieved. The Bible describes this decision of our heart and mind as being born into new life, we are then dead to our old ways. We gain citizenship to this new kingdom (Phil 3:20) and should no longer desire or pursue our former life. We are dead to it in every way. We willingly and full accept the call then to function as ambassadors of the new kingdom towards those still dying in the old rival kingdoms of the world as we now happily exist as foreigners or exiles dwelling in our former broken world which scripture describes to be ruled by Satan. The Jesus kingdom is characterized and embodied by those who serve others not themselves, those with the desire to love their enemies and turn the other cheek in grace and mercy shepherding and winning them over them to a better more beautiful way of life. As ambassadors to the pagan nations, we are the physical manifestation of Jesus to our world. In this way, Christians are called to pledge their allegiance to God and his Kingdom, not to any worldly nation, government, political party, flag, or ideology. One of the main tasks of a Christian is to live set-apart which means separated. Separated from what? The world. To live wholly devoted and undefiled for Jesus.

Of course, 2000 years later some circumstances might complicate, cloud, or entangle your thinking. Paul was a part of three kingdoms, he maintained Jewish citizenship, Roman citizenship and was certainly fully devoted primarily to the Kesus kingdom. Most Jesus followers didn’t have a “vote” in Rome; yet today our Rival nation asks us what we think by casting a vote. It is actually pretty amazing that the evil empire allows Christians a vote. In many ways every decision you make is a “vote” of some sort.

Patriotism doesn’t necessarily mean you love the evil satanic ongoings of our government and Washington DC, although it certainly can and often does; but the better idea is that you love the people of the nation and the soil by which it is represented. Godly presence means that the land you inhabit became sacred space unto the Lord. Eventually all the land and world will be won back for the Lord and consecrated back to Him. Do we start now? Isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing?

The enemy is willing to give you a “place” at his table, should you take it? Would Jesus have eaten at that table? Obviously, peoples answer to these questions, even based on scripture and interpretation will vary. Jesus “entertained” the table but not the rival kingdom.

Christian Patriotism

As much as this is the mainstream view and what most Americans believe the Bible teaches, the exegetical “proof” (IMHO) is slim if there at all. However, those that believe that the Bible aligns with casting a vote for your government make a rather convincing philosophical argument. Some of the founding fathers truly believed and sought after creating a platform of government in America by which Godly principles and Godly men could lead our country. Charles Finney, John Adams, John Jay, and Samuel Adams are amongst my favorites that I truly believe were “all in” seekers of the Jesus kingdom, but my verdict is out on the other 55 people in that “boarded up” room. If you haven’t listened to our Expedition 44 interview with Michael Gaddy, I would encourage you to give it a listen. In one regard you might not care what the founding fathers said or thought or might believe that only 4-5 of the founding fathers were postured towards the kingdom. What they say isn’t God’s voice to you and therefore you might think is largely irrelevant to you. But that view might seem to take on a selfishly driven perspective of historical learning.

There are a few ideas in the Bible that might promote such a dual citizenship. Matthew 22:37-40 tells us to Love God and our neighbor. If we truly want the best for our neighbor, wouldn’t we exercise our influence against the evil atrocities of the world and government? But if your already not a great neighbor and you use this passage to justify voting as helping your neighbor then you have some “order issues” or might be guilty of doing something you are accusing others of (ie being a hypocrite and we all know that isn’t helping the body of Christ with their “image”.)

Others might cite Romans 13:8 or I Tim 2:1-4 or even Gal 6 as having influence in our world. The New Testament is filled with examples of Godly people who do not obey the government. As there is a conversation of the narrative and the authors personal opinion coming out in their writings. The bible makes it very clear to follow Jesus first and foremost. Paul himself, the author of the letter to the Romans, disobeyed the government on numerous occasions. Paul uses the word ‘hypotassō,’ which gets translated as “subject.” Paul could have used the word ‘hypakouō’ which means ‘obey,’ but he doesn’t. This difference in words is important.

One of the problems with this view is political corruption. Does your vote even matter? Personally, probably not, but collectively -Yes (is hard to argue). Much of the Biblical theme dwells on the communal body of Christ making a kingdom difference in the world we live in.

Piety / Detachment

When you start asking questions like, whose table are you eating from, or whose flag are you flying, or who are you “in bed with,” you might understand the current political problems of potentially aligning with any system of the world. You also might find an issue with casting a vote for someone you don’t think is a good person, or should we be voting for anyone that isn’t directly part of the Jesus kingdom? (But then the issue comes that if you think this way then no Christian would ever be in a place to vote.) Are you voting for the lesser of two evils – well then, you’re still voting for evil? How does that work as a Christian? There are many Biblical reasons why some have decided to simply not be “aligned” with any system of the world and remain “checked out” of that world and only interested in the happenings of the Jesus Kingdom. The Essenes were an entire first century culture that chose to go this way. Some conservative Baptists also have made choices like this. Most of the prophets were aligned this way and John the Baptist seems to also be described in a similar historical context. Rather than get wrapped up in the ways of the world and their ongoings maybe it would just be better to exit that arena and completely focus all of your time treasure and talent on the kingdom of Jesus? Sounds sort of Biblical, doesn’t it?

Prophetic Witness

This seems to be where Jesus hung out. Tends be personified by a pacifistic voice. It finds its basis by taking exilic language and applying the “babylon” thinking to the context of our current situation.

Jer 29 4 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all who were carried away captive, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 Build houses and dwell in them; plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters—that you may be increased there, and not diminished. 7 And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the Lord for it; for in its peace you will have peace.

Beginning with Moses, God appoints several figures to act as Prophets. Walter Bruggemann, asserts that the task of the prophetic is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us. Prophets speak truth to power—yes, but they are also there to remind the people of God who they are and to speak as one of the Spirit. [2] As Christians we have been commissioned to make disciples, not political leaders. We have sacrificed our witness at the altar of power. We are Kingdom people— Kingdom of God. We are not empire people.

THE WRAP UP

I echo the call of Bryan Zhand: The entire creation is groaning for the Sons and Daughters of God to reveal themselves (Romans 8:19). [3] Some would argue that we can’t escape the “politics” of the world around us, and maybe we shouldn’t be trying to. Our politics (if any) must understand the Kingdom of God first and the politics of Jesus is our platform. As I began stating, the body of Christ has many dynamics. Those that are part of the same body read and interpret the same text differently. They see the ongoings of the world and the way Jesus interests through different lenses. Time and situations are constantly shifting. What you couldn’t or wouldn’t consider or justify last year you might this. We should all be in a state of rethinking and reconsidering truly what Jesus would do in each and every situation. Edification is sometimes supporting your brothers and sisters in Christ when you might not fully get them. Seasons change, people change, but God’s character is unchanging, and his ways are always faithful to us despite our broken ways.

  1. https://academic.oup.com/book/43046
  2. The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann
  3. https://brianzahnd.com/2007/04/creation-and-covenant/

Separated from God?

Posted by expedition44 on

What does it mean to truly be Separated from God?

The idea or doctrine of separation from God is often misunderstood within current evangelical Christianity. Make no mistake, humanity continues to make choices to be separated from God, but I would venture to say most Christians have an inaccurate view of this separation. Adam and Eve’s sin separated them from the life that the tree gave but it didn’t necessarily separate them from God. At that moment death was passed on, but not their original sin. And to be clear fellowship with God was also not lost as you often hear! That is the continual message of God to His people. He still desires to walk with them. If you remember in the garden, He didn’t walk with them 100% of the time (Genesis 3 alludes to this.) It is true that Adam and Eve were “removed” from the garden, which was God’s domain; and then placed or led back down to lower or common earth and guards were placed at the entrance as to not allow them back into Eden.

In a basic sense humanity at that moment was separated from God. If my kids are fighting, I separate them (and often relocate them) but that doesn’t mean that my intent is to sever the relationship, I am merely changing their space. After the fall what changed is that from this point on God would have to go to people and meet the people where they were, rather than the people naturally dwelling in God’s sacred space -Eden. Metaphorically, instead of my kids playing in my room I have to go visit them in their room. In this sense there was a type of “separation” but not inability. Perhaps it would make the relationship more difficult but, but the intent certainly was not to sever, quite the opposite actually. This understanding is important when forming your “separation theology” and your basis for understanding the character of God to Humanity.

Similarly, after the fall, to Israel He was a cloud and “walked” with them similar to the way that he walked with Adam and Eve in the garden, that aspect of their relationship to God wasn’t lost, it was always offered and up to humanity to accept or reject. The intent and purpose that God started in the Garden to walk with his royal priesthood didn’t change after the fall, it just “distanced” the plan.

One thing that is very important that few have come to realize is that today, through Jesus we are actually better off or closer is distance or proximity than Adam and Eve were in this sense of walking with God, this is the heart of the new covenant -we have His Spirit residing in us continually as we are His temple. Jesus not only returned us to what we had in Eden but perfected it. Does He come and go such as described in Genesis 3? No, He is always with us, we are promised that time and time again as the core of who and what His Spirit offers to us. We may receive a fresh anointing (and that may be up to your theology here); but make no mistake, He never leaves us. I am not really even comfortable saying that we are or were temporarily separated from God as I truly see the Spirit continually meeting the most broken people in the most broken places. (I will remind you that after the fall God still sent his presence to reside with people.) Today, God and His spirit are continually available to us, but we also still have to make the cognitive choice to enter into that walk. That’s always been the choice of humanity -choose to walk with God or choose to be separated (live divided or rival) from Him. That is the core of our free will. Adam and Eve’s banishment from the garden did a lot of things theologically, but to say that it separated (severed) us from the presence of God, as a lot of doctrines would understand it -seems to be theologically inaccurate. The offer from God to continue fellowship with Him strongly continued after the garden. In fact, that may actually be the central theme of all of scripture!!! One of the main character attributes of God is the desire to continue walking with everyone that would enter into a covenant with Him. He would continue to be faithful to that relationship when others would be unfaithful.

Separation from God is theologically defined as “Hell”. One of the issues that people have a hard time understanding is that our English translations use only one word for “hell” when there are several words that described slightly different contexts of what our one word meant in both the Old Testament and the New Testament in Hebrew and Greek. The great majority of the time we see the English word Hell translated in our Bibles it is the Geek word “Gehenna” describing more of a loose “hell on earth” separation from God. Gehenna was an actual place in the ancient world. The Valley of Hinnom, Gehinnom or Gehenna is a historic valley surrounding Jerusalem from the west and southwest that has acquired various theological connotations, including as a place of divine punishment, in Jewish eschatology. The term Gehenna in the first century was regularly used as an idiom for something like “the other side of the tracks” (Matthew 5, 10, 18, 23 as well as Mark 9 and other places). in this way when the word hell was used it had a metaphorical sense similar to what we might say as “life is hell.” But I also would say we have to be careful here as the implication was that these places were thought of as being “far from God” but that isn’t necessarily accurate. Jesus actually spent a good deal of time in these darker places. In other words, the world would say that God may be separated from these places but God, especially through His son doesn’t seem to be bound by any kind of separation to them. In this sense as I express early, Jesus regularly met people in “their hell.”

There is also a parallel to this way of thinking in most of the early church creeds in the understanding that after Jesus’ crucifixion he descended into the depths to “meet people in their hell” and possibly regain the lost keys of life and offer them to those in that place that was formerly “separated from Him. I would venture to say that Jesus’ theology would be consistent having the same or very similar requirements to these “souls” that we are given in the rest of the scripture and particularly the new covenant. Interesting to think that a large part of Jesus’ mission was to again offer this kind of relational life in the afterworld to those that seemingly rejected it (or had never had the chance perhaps) to now accept that relationship.

In some cases (similar to those listed above) and in the OT, the realm of the dead is the Hebrew word sheol often translated as hell. The New Testament Greek equivalent to sheol is hades. In the New Testament, this is only found a few times such as in Matt 16 when the “gates of Hades” was used as a colloquial Jewish phrase for death and a reference of the fallen spiritual beings in a Deuteronomy 32 worldview sense. Surprisingly, the least used term for Hell in the Bible is the one most people think of the most “as hell”, and is translated as the lake of fire, mentioned only in Revelation 19:20 and 20:10, 14-15, and takes on the traditional view of the “final hell”, for what seems to be the destiny of both fallen spiritual beings (to which it was created by original intent) and human beings that have not chosen to accept and live for God – this is an eschatological state of judgement.

However, in some way, all the translated types of hell seem to describe a condition of being separated from God.

In conclusion, traditionally we have misinterpreted separation to be something that was put between us and our relationship with God in Eden, yet the Bible doesn’t say that. God’s intimate and vivacious pursuit to walk or have intimate relationship with us is tied closely to His character and thus never changes. Through Jesus we are actually closer in proximity to Have His spirit in our Hearts than what was first given at Eden. God’s pursuit to have intimate communion with us is stronger and closer than ever before.

What did Adam and Eve’s Sin actually do to you? Reformed roots-

Posted by expedition44 on

If you grew up in modern evangelical circles, I am sure you were raised in church hearing something like,

Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, you and I now live personally separated from the tree of life and from the presence of God. The whole human race at that moment was flung into the downward spiral of the curse of man and God’s wrath, the weight of their sin and God’s judgement fell on them and therefore continues to fall on us as if we also made the cognitive choice that Adam and Eve made.

Many x44 people have gone through a bit of an exegetical deconstruction of what they have always been told that the Bible says finding out that what they have traditionally been fed and believed likely isn’t the nature of God or what the Bible actually says. Renovation is needed and usually bears fruit and opens the thresholds towards devotion to the Lord. As I agree with a good part of the statements above, I believe such similar statements to be misleading and stunt a person’s road to sanctification. First much of this way of thinking is tied to the pillars of Calvinism. I will mostly quote from R.C. Sproul who is commonly known as the best Theologian to hold to and explain Reformed theology and Calvinism. To be clear I have read every article and book I source completely. My library has as many books defending Calvinism (and likely more), than I own from the free will camps. Before Sproul passed, I knew him personally and greatly respected him and agreed theologically with him in some capacities (such as partial preterism) but unfortunately feel that he was way off on becoming the popular spokesperson for Calvinism. This article is intended to be a “quicker” read, if you are interested in diving into this conversation, I would suggest the X44 Original Sin series here.

To be clear, thinking that every person is somehow under spell handed down to them generation after generation by reformed circles camps own definition is called Total depravity (also called radical corruption and is foundationally tied to the concept of original sin)[1] and asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God, but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to trust God for their salvation and be saved (the term “total” in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as they could be).[2] This doctrine is derived from Calvin’s interpretation of Augustine’s explanation about Original Sin.[3] The singular scripture that is used for this is:

 “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).

We also have an entire x44 series on Atonement and get into regularly why the way the reformed camps use this verse singularly (along with a few others) is neither exegetical nor follows the laws of hermeneutics. Notice that it was death that passed (separated now from the sustaining Tree of Life) or came upon all, not Adam’s personal disobedience. But to remind you of a few basics, Romans 5 needs to be read in context, not simply plucking one verse out to make a doctrine out of it. Scripture seems to teach that sin itself is not inherited (although the consequences for Israel often stretched to 4 generations): “[T]he son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Eze. 18:20). Everyone is responsible for their own conduct (Rom. 14:12). Sinfulness often begins in one’s youth (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:25). Children must reach a level of maturity before they are able to choose good and evil (Isa. 7:15, 16). Little children are held up as models for those who seek the kingdom (Matt. 18:3; 19:14). The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; it is given by God (Ecc. 12:7; Heb. 12:9).

In our YouTube video ORIGINAL SIN series we addressed how Original Sin (the pre-cursor to Calvinistic doctrines) is not Biblical or Ancient.

  • The first 400 years of the Church did not believe this.
  • There is zero evidence that Judaism ever believed this. Modern Messianic Jews do not believe this.
  • Augustine was the inventor of this doctrine in the 5th century and much of it was due to his importation of his pagan background into Christianity and lack of the knowledge of the Greek language.

NONE OF THESE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AFFIRMED THIS: Clement, the Didache, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, or Justin Martyr

The doctrine came into the church through Augustine of Hippo (396-440 CE) and the doctrine was originally called Concupiscence. Augustine could only read Latin, not Greek, or Hebrew. Augustine came to original sin by reading Romans 5:12 in a bad Latin translation. The original Greek would read: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” Yet his Latin translation said, “all have sinned in Him (Adam)”. Where the Greek says that death has spread to all because all (each) have sinned.  

Concupiscence

  • Concupiscence, according to Augustine, relates to Adam’s sin being transferred through sexual reproduction.
  • Its root definition is a base sexual desire. We get our word concubine from this.
  • He believed that through this all men are born with their will, body, and mind corrupt, and this is transmitted sexually. They inherited the sin through the sexual act leading to birth.
  • He taught that Jesus had to be born of a virgin because he connected this to the sexual act. Therefore, the virgin birth spared Jesus from a sinful nature.
    • I affirm the virgin birth but Isaiah said this is a “SIGN” and has nothing to do with original sin.
    • God’s first command to humans to be fruitful and multiply. If sex is in itself a sinful act as reformed theology says than God would be commanding humans to sin.
  • We also get the doctrine of infant depravity from this, and Pastors today even keep this bad doctrine going:
    • John MacArthur said, “At no point is a man’s depravity more manifest than in the procreative act…by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked.”
    • Augustine of Hippo said, “The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their frames; the minds of infants are far from innocent.”

One issue with teaching that sin is inherited is that it means God is then judging you for someone else’s action. That obviously isn’t scriptural. Thinking this way holds you back. In Christ we have life -not death. Once we accept this life here and now and eschatologically to come, we are called and charged to live in holiness separated from any ties of sin. That is what it means to live a life in Sanctification.

FROM HERE I WANT TO SHOW THE PROGRESSION INTO 5PT CALVINISM, but if you already know that, skip down to the next similar starred divider to continue reading:

The next problem with thinking we are bound to the sin ascribed to us that it would mean that we are also then unconditionally elected (also called sovereign election)[4] which asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. Some may argue the connection, but if you believe you came into this world already doomed by someone that came before you then you believe at least some part of the decision has been made for you. I do believe in the corruption of the fallen world, but we are called to be delivered and live in freedom. The effects of the death that came in through Adam are not or do not have to be continual towards you. You are only responsible for your choices in terms of life with Jesus. With this you also venture into a very similar doctrine called limited atonement (also called definite atonement)[5] asserts that Jesus’s substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus’s death. This is cosmic lottery language. I can’t find anything in the Bible that goes this way and neither could the early church. These are all modern “inventions” that came from the Reformation.

Thinking this way is also tied to the idea of irresistible grace (also called effectual grace)[6] which asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. Essentially this believes that God created robots and determined their ways before time. It completely discounts the many passages that clearly teach free will. It leaves reformed theologians having to do all kinds of theological gymnastics with verses about free will.

Finally thinking that you are responsible for the sins of the ones that came before you is also ties to a Calvinist doctrine called the perseverance of the saints (also called preservation of the saints;[7] the “saints” being those whom God has predestined to salvation) asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with (1 John 2:19), or, if they are saved but not presently walking in the Spirit, they will be divinely chastened (Hebrews 12:5–11) and will repent (1 John 3:6–9).[8] Most people refer to this as once saved always saved. But in this case, if you believe that sins were tied to you at birth, your theology if it is consistent would also then get to the place of believing that everything was set before you and if that is the case, to be consistent if you were intended by a sovereign God to be saved then how could you lose that? The problem again goes back to the fact that the Bible continually teaches that we are responsible for the decisions we make and even though when we make and allegiant confession our past is made clean, we continue to be held responsible by a just God for decisions thereafter. You can’t make a onetime proclamation and go on living in sin and expect to be saved. The proclamation of life in Christ is ongoing. Ot is a journey, an expedition. This is why I have said many times, if you are going to take on any form of reformed theology it should be one or all of them. Perhaps the worst theology is those that try to adhere to a few points of Calvinism but not all of them.

Here is a better way of thinking about original sin rather than falling into Calvinist doctrines such as the above… (these are borrowed and slightly reworded from my good friend Greg Boyd at reknew.org.

1) I do think it is theoretically possible for an individual to live a sinless life, you do too if you truly believe in the complete humanity of Jesus! Yet, this isn’t inconsistent with admitting that everyone will inevitably sin. Think of it like this. Every car crash (let us assume) is preventable, if only drivers were more careful.  Hence, it is theoretically possible that there will be no car crashes anywhere on the earth today — or this month — or this year — or ever.  But it is certain there will be car crashes, for which drivers are responsible.   The thing is, statistical certainty doesn’t negate individual responsibility.  We are responsible for every sin we commit, -we didn’t need to do it. We could have done otherwise. It’s theoretically possible to go the rest of our lives without sinning. Yet, it’s certain that, over our lifetime of decisions, we will sin. I believe most evangelical American Christians are far from this, but we don’t have to be. The worldly entanglement has led way to daily sins. But I do believe we were called and created and expected to do better before the Lord.

2) I see “original sin” as mostly being born into a screwed-up world that is oppressed with fallen powers. This doesn’t make us sin nor are we responsible for the sins before us that contributed to it. Yet, it does render it certain that we will eventually sin (see above).  This is, in part, why we need a savior. To be clear one we are dead to our old selves we should not continue to live in sin or the slavery of the world. Paul makes this exceedingly clear.

3) Finally, it is important that we not think about this only in individualistic terms.  From a biblical perspective (and now, with much confirmation from science), the human community is, in a sense, one person, extending back to Adam. We were made to live, disciple, and be discipled in the community of those that walk with Jesus. We influence each other, and are responsible, in varying degrees, for one another.  So we have collectively gotten ourselves into a situation where we can’t avoid sin, and the responsibility is shared by all of us.  This is what Paul means when he says we were in Adam.  Yet, we are now placed in Christ — all of us (I Cor. 15:22; Rom 5:14-20). It’s just that we all (including believers) tend to see ourselves and our world as though we were yet in Adam.  Transitioning from Adam-thought to Christ-thought is what discipleship is all about. One of my biggest grumbles with evangelical modern church is we don’t disciple to live devotionally to the LORD in communion with the perseverance of the saints.

Getting back to where we started, Adam and Eve’s sin separated them from the life that the tree gave but it didn’t necessarily separate them from God. I have an article on this here.

That is the continual message of God to His people. He still desires to walk with them. God does not remain separated from us, He is always with us, we are promised that time and time again. We may receive a fresh anointing (and that may be up to your theology here); but make no mistake, He never leaves us.

We don’t have to live in depravity or a downward spiral. That is another huge theme of the Bible! God has more for you! Claim him, get into the word, be surrounded with the community of saints, and live and walk with Him every hour of every day! Refuse the world and all that it offers. You were purposed for more! Don’t let Satan sell yourself short! Claim victory and live in perseverance walking with the LORD and those that walk with Him. Seek discipleship and disciple! Live out your kingdom destiny!

God’s wrath in scripture is the handing over of his unrepentant sinful people to what they have coming or what they have earned. It is removing the providential hand from their lives. The weight of your sin and consequences of your decisions are real but you don’t need to and shouldn’t dwell there! Don’t dwell in your sin. Get redeemed! God offers you healing and freedom here and now! Step into it, believe it and live it. You are no longer to be bound to your flesh or former ways of the world. Step into it and live it!

let me articulate a better view:

The sin of Adam and Eve separated humanity from the tree of life but God is still offering the relationship that He had with them in Eden and actually desires a better way, not to just occasionally walk with you as He did with Adam and Eve in Eden, but through Jesus now offers even more, He wants to never leave you, to continually reside in your heart as you become His temple being the very physical manifestation of the presence of God to those you interact with. Yes, the world has been taken over by evil, but you represent light and have the power to make the presence that you fill sacred to make what is broken healed. You are the source of God to renew the Earth. You no longer live under a curse, but the power of the LORD is in you. Choose this day to no longer live in sin and dwell richly in the presence of the LORD. 1 Jn 3:6-9, 1 Jn 5:18, Rom 8:11, Gal 2:20, Col 1:27, I Peter 2:8-9, Eph 3:17, 2 Thess 1:10, 2 Cor 5:17, and so many more passages make all of these things abundantly clear.

  1.  Sproul, R. C. (March 25, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Total Depravity”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I like to replace the term total depravity with my favorite designation, which is radical corruption. Ironically, the word radical has its roots in the Latin word for “root,” which is radix, and it can be translated root or core.
  2. ^ Steele, David; Thomas, Curtis (1963). The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, Documented. P&R. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-87552-444-3. The adjective ‘total’ does not mean that each sinner is as totally or completely corrupt in his actions and thoughts as it is possible for him to be. Instead, the word ‘total’ is used to indicate that the “whole” of man’s being has been affected by sin.
  3. ^ Livingstone, Elizabeth A. (2005). “Original sin”. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.
  4.  Sproul, R. C. (April 1, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Unconditional Election”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. Unconditional election is another term that I think can be a bit misleading, so I prefer to use the term sovereign election.
  5. Sproul, R. C. (April 8, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Limited Atonement”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I prefer not to use the term limited atonement because it is misleading. I rather speak of definite redemption or definite atonement, which communicates that God the Father designed the work of redemption specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect, and that Christ died for His sheep and laid down His life for those the Father had given to Him.
  6. Sproul, R. C. (April 15, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Irresistible Grace”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I have a little bit of a problem using the term irresistible grace, not because I don’t believe this classical doctrine, but because it is misleading to many people. Therefore, I prefer the term effectual grace, because the irresistible grace of God effects what God intends it to effect.
  7.  Sproul, R. C. (April 22, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Perseverance of the Saints”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I think this little catchphrase, perseverance of the saints, is dangerously misleading. It suggests that the perseverance is something that we do, perhaps in and of ourselves. … So I prefer the term the preservation of the saints, because the process by which we are kept in a state of grace is something that is accomplished by God.
  8. ^ Boettner, Loraine. “The Perseverance of the Saints”. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.

Renouncing the World for sole allegiance to Jesus and His Kingdom

Posted by expedition44 on

“So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has, cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14:33

If you know me at all, you know that I am an “ALL IN” guy for the Kingdom who believes we shouldn’t be holding anything back for Jesus. Luke 14 calls us to be rival to anything that opposes Jesus, but with the context that even our enemies might be won over to Him.

“RENOUNCE ALL” – Jesus had some “HARD SAYINGS” but this one might take the cake! Today in our American Christianity or churchianity paradigm we seem to just simply ignore this one! This flies in the face of health and wealth prosperity preaching seeming to identify that perhaps Christians should sell everything (Christ’s words to the rich young ruler and the Acts 2 mindset) and live as paupers for the kingdom. And to be clear, I do think it takes on that tone.

But let’s take a closer look, in Greek the phrase is ouk apotassetai, which literally would be to “not place in order from”. What’s very interesting to me is in the New Testament every single time the verb apostasso is used it is in the middle voice. I would venture to say this is the only treatment of a verb this way in the entire text. It is very rare and unusual, so it makes me take special interest and ask why? When we say to “not renounce” something then, it takes a sense of “to place in order away from myself”. Understanding the literal translation of the Greek phrase means that when we read paying attention to the grammar of the Greek language you come out understanding that the mindset is to restructure or reorder, we give up chaos for order to come to proper balance in the kingdom. A life of shalom. So, if I had to translate the middle voice thought into this (as some translations like NT Wright’s have attempted) it might better read, “No one can be my disciple who does not take up the proper priorities in terms of possessions for Godly order over the world’s chaos.” Of course that doesn’t read well! Furthermore, the middle voice almost always implies that Christ is taking the action for us, that it is something out of your control once you come to the posture called for, usually devotion but in this case is actually a step more than that -it leans towards the harder definition of Jesus into discipleship. (What seems to follow the progression of fan > follower > disciple.)

If you don’t take on the posture of Jesus with your worldly things you can’t possibly enter into Jesus’ definition of discipleship. They must be renounced or completely re-ordered. So, the takeaway is what you can’t do is keep the prioritization of the world and still attest to be on the track to discipleship.

Everything is His and if you attest to be “all in”, than nothing should be your own. That’s why tithing in the New Covenant is a hard conversation. Tithing along with the Torah in the Old Testament was to be a stop gap until all things could be reconciled by Jesus. Now that “WE” have Jesus everything is His. If your on track your not thinking Tithe or Torah your thinking everything! (YOUR LIFE) Nothing is your stuff or your time. And the path to sanctification is more of Him and His kingdom ways and less of your world ways. A complete transformation that finishes eschatologically (but in que on this world) with you being made completely into the image of Jesus.

You don’t need to “create time or space” for Jesus if all of your time and space is for Jesus. You no longer have claim to anything of the world, YOU HAVE RENOUNCED THAT NOTION!

If you catch yourself beginning to collect things for your earthly storehouse that has no place for kingdom endeavors your posture for the kingdom is out of balance. You are mis-stepping the path of discipleship. The text says anyone off course can’t be my disciple. Do you want to be a disciple? Are you willing to come to a complete posture before the Lord to enter this covenant? Are you willing to “give up” everything to be a disciple?

One reason generations are disengaging from the church is because of the mixed messages the church has sent for years. Many people have become disillusioned with the division in the American church and one of the reasons is because we’ve exchanged a biblical gospel that exalts Jesus above everything in the world for an American (progressive) gospel that prostitutes Jesus for the sake of comfort, control, power, politics and prosperity in this world. I’m compelled to pray, God, we want to renounce it all. I pray that we don’t settle as disciples of Christ. I pray that we might be in absolute devotion to Jesus’ deeper covenant relationship both in this life and eschatologically in the coming kingdom.

In the last 10 years there have been several books written that speak to this:

  • Will Ryan – This is the Way (Series)
  • Boyd – The Myth of a Christian Nation
  • Zahnd – Postcards from Babylon
  • Bates – Salvation By Allegiance Alone 
  • Sprinkle – Exiles: The Church in the Shadow of Empire (Church in the Shadow of Empire)
  • Wright & Bird – Jesus and the Powers: Christian Political Witness in an Age of Totalitarian Terror and Dysfunctional Democracies
  • Platt – Don’t Hold Back: Leaving Behind the American Gospel to Follow Jesus Fully 
  • But before all of these there was a classic called – Persecution in the Early Church, A Chapter on the History of Renunciation, by Herbert B. Workman, in 1906

The opening pages of the New Covenant declared this same philosophy by Holy Cannon. John the Baptist was the precursory proclaimer of this truth as ‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare the Way of the Lord’. The explosive scene that his ministry encapsulated could be summarized by the title we all know him by: The Baptiser.

Matthew 3:1-3

In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,

‘Prepare the way for the Lord,

make straight paths for Him.’”

This message was approved by Heaven through the institution of baptism as an expression of forsaking all other allegiant positions as a returning to the One True and Living God. His message was demonstrated by a public display of that newfound loyalty through the waters of baptism signifying a washing away of the old for the embracing of the new. This message spread like wildfire among the religious Jews and even impacted the gentile population in their midst.

Vss 5:6 “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region around the Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.”

In keeping with the divine purposes of his message, he adamantly declared that those wishing to embrace this new allegiant life (the path to discipleship) MUST renounce all other places of faith and fully submit to the Kingdom life.

Vss 7-8 “But when John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his place of baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit, then, in keeping with repentance.’”

A requirement for John was the ‘produced fruit’ consistent with a changed heart. John was not looking for new FaceBook subscribers, or popularity in his ministry… the purpose was to transform lives. This was accomplished through radical, immediate, and noticeable lifestyle reflections consistent with true, sincere, and authentic repentance. What John was doing, and ultimately what Jesus declared in His Gospel, would find direct and deadly conflict with the hierarchy of Judaism and the control of the Roman system. So deadly in fact, both John and Jesus were martyred for their unified message.

In a life application aspect what John was requiring was real, daily change. The tax collectors were told to stop their extortion. The soldiers were commanded to treat others with respect and to cease being bullies for personal gain. The religious were charged with throwing away their masks of self-righteousness and hypocrisy and embracing a non-legalistic view of worship.

For us today, this message should still resonate as loudly and powerfully. What should we cast aside for the throne of Jesus in our soul to be unchallenged? Where in our hearts, attitudes, finances, relationships, and time are we being prodded by this message of complete allegiance do we find the world challenging the supremacy of Christ?

______________________________________________________________

During the first few centuries a great conflict arose between Rome and those obedient to Yahweh. By Roman theory, the national state was the one sole society that must engross (take up, control) every interest of its residents: religion, social, political and humanitarian. In other words, the state should be the supreme authority in one’s life. Romans wanted Christians to take their part as loyal citizens of the empire, discharging the dues, performing the obligations of a citizen, displaying complete loyalty. The Christian replied, “We worship no other.”

Under Rome, all new “societies” were required to obtain a charter or permission from the emperor or from the senate. If the group was not granted permission under the state, they were considered “rival” to the state. The extreme penalty was treason, punishable by death. Christians were not persecuted because of their creed, but because of the absoluteness of the Christian faith. 



To say that Jesus is Lord was a statement against the empire. “No King but Jesus” became the rallying cry of the true believer and also the last words of many persecuted and martyred Christians.

The Jewish–Roman wars were a series of large-scale revolts by the Jews (and / or Christians) of Judaea and the Eastern Mediterranean against the Roman Empire between 66 and 135 CE. [1] These wars were in large part over the “kingship” of the peoples. Could Rome demand sole authority? Although the Diaspora of the Jews started many years before this, the Jewish–Roman wars had a devastating impact on the Jewish people, transforming them from a major population in the Eastern Mediterranean into a dispersed and persecuted minority. [2] Most scholars would consider this charge of Jews and Christians to not give allegiance to Rome over God and / or Jesus as the major distinguishing feature of what defined an all-in follower of God or Jesus. The First Jewish-Roman War culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and other towns and villages in Judaea, resulting in significant loss of life and a considerable segment of the population being uprooted or displaced. Those who remained were stripped of any form of political autonomy. Subsequently, the brutal suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt resulted in even more severe consequences. Judea witnessed a significant depopulation, as many Jews were killed, expelled, or sold into slavery. [4]

Jews were banned from residing in the vicinity of Jerusalem, after the central worship site of Second Temple Judaism, the Second Temple in Jerusalem, was destroyed by Titus’s troops in 70 CE. [5] The destruction of the Temple led to a transformation in Jewish religious practices, emphasizing prayer, Torah study, and communal gatherings in synagogues outside of Jerusalem. This pivotal shift laid the foundation for the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism, which has been the dominant form of Judaism since late antiquity, after the codification of the Babylonian Talmud. [6] But this also gave way to the rise or continuation of Christianity. As Rabbinical Judaism spiraled down, Christianity rose up taking on many of the same “anti-empirical” thoughts towards the ruling over them and their religion by Rome. Perhaps more than before Christians were now vowing allegiance to Jesus over any other form of worldly government. Persecution has always had a purifying effect on the true people of God.

By the third century, emperors were realizing that the Church was not a mere body of anarchists to be rooted out wherever necessary. The Church was fast becoming a rival organization of growing strength and power. The aggressiveness of Christ’s followers was viewed by Rome as a very real threat to their worldwide domination.

By the middle of the third century, the more energetic rulers organized efforts to crush out the Church by the use of all the resources of the state. The police measures taken at Antonines (Roman Emperors who ruled between 138 and 180: Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius) gave place to a civil war without quarter (mercy offered). But, unlike all other civil wars, only one side was armed. Strange to say, this was the side that was ultimately defeated. On the one hand were the immense resources of the Empire, centralized in one supreme will. On the other side was the PASSIVE RESISTANCE OF CHRIST’S FOLLOWERS, making the state’s massive recourses useless. The Christians were a peculiar people, with peculiar views of their own. They wore no distinctive garb (clothing: outward appearance) in the world, yet they were definitely not of the world. “We are supposed to live aloof from crowds,” said Tertullian, an early Church leader. [7] Their opponents phrased the matter differently. They are “a people who separate themselves and break away from the rest of mankind.”

The pacifistic early church Christians seem to have gotten Jesus words a bit “more right” compared to the war mongers of 70 AD. It was hard to find an occupation in which the Christian could engage without compromising with idolatry. Some said that if they did not compromise, they would be cut off from every means of livelihood. Tertullian replied that, “faith must despise starvation as much as it despises death.” [8] But the more the Christians prospered, the more their neighbors “hated them” or perhaps “grew envious of them.” The Christians professed, “nothing was more alien to them than politics.” [9]

In practice, Christianity and the Empire proved fundamentally antagonistic. They were rivals in conception and method. Each claimed to be a kingdom of universal sway; each created a Church of universal obligation, each demanded absolute loyalty to its supreme lord. Between Caesar and Christ there could be no compromise. [10]

BART D. EHRMAN

Persecution was the direct outcome of the Christian doctrine of RENUNCIATION. To renounce meant to disown, reject and disclaim. The early Christians were renouncing their allegiance to the Roman Empire and denying any connection to it. In other words, the Christian ceased to be his own master, ceased to have his old environment, ceased to hold his old connections with the state. In everything, he became the bond-servant to Jesus Christ. In everything he owed his supreme allegiance and fealty (loyalty) to the new empire with Jesus Christ as Head. “We engage in these conflicts as men whose very lives are not our own… We have no master but God,” said Tertullian. [11]

Scriptures for further study and consideration:

Luke 3:3-17

3 He went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (noun), 

4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for Him.

5 Every valley shall be filled in, and every mountain and hill made low.

The crooked ways shall be made straight, and the rough ways smooth.

6 And all humanity will see God’s salvation.’”

7 Then John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 

8 Produce (Aorist Imperative Active) fruit, then, in keeping with (accusative adjective of ‘fruits’ meaning ‘worthy, suitable, deserving, matching value) repentance (metanoias). And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 

9 The axe lies ready at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

10 The crowds asked him, “What then should we do?”

11 John replied, “Whoever has two tunics should share with him who has none, and whoever has food should do the same.”

12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”

13 “Collect no more than you are authorized,” he answered.

14 Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” “Do not take money by force or false accusation,” he said. “Be content with your wages.”

15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John could be the Christ. 

16 John answered all of them: “I baptize you with water, but One more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 

17 His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Acts 8:26-38

26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Get up and go south to the desert road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” 

27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official in charge of the entire treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 

28 and on his return was sitting in his chariot reading Isaiah the prophet.

29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to that chariot and stay by it.”

30 So Philip ran up and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

32 The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so He did not open His mouth.

33 In His humiliation He was deprived of justice. Who can recount His descendants? For His life was removed from the earth.”

34 “Tell me,” said the eunuch, “who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”

35 Then Philip began with this very Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

36 As they traveled along the road and came to some water, the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is there to prevent me from being baptized?” 

38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

1 Peter 3:18-22

18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit, 

19 in whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison 

20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. 

21 And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also— not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God— through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 

22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.

Romans 6:1-7

1 What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase? 

2 Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer? 

3 Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 

4 We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with Him like this in His death, we will certainly also be united with Him in His resurrection. 

6 We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. 

7 For anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

_____________________________________________________________________

Written by Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Steve Cassell

Works Cited:

  1. Bloom, J.J. 2010 The Jewish Revolts Against Rome, A.D. 66–135: A Military Analysis. McFarland.
  2. Hitti, Philip K. (2002). Hitti, P. K. Gorgias Press. ISBN 9781931956604. Archived from the original on 15 April 2021. Retrieved 28 July 2022.
  3. Schwartz, Seth (2014). The ancient Jews from Alexander to Muhammad. Cambridge. pp. 85–86. ISBN 978-1-107-04127-1. OCLC 863044259.
  4. Taylor, J. E. (15 November 2012). The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea. Oxford University Press.
  5. Armstrong (2011). Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. p. 163.
  6. Karesh, Sara E. (2006). Encyclopedia of Judaism.
  7.  Harrison, Peter (June 2017). “‘I Believe Because it is Absurd’: The Enlightenment Invention of Tertullian’s Credo”. Church History.
  8. Gonzáles, Justo L. (2010). “The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation”. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 
  9. This translation was created in conjunction with the Patristics Project at Faulkner University.
  10. Bart D. Ehrman is the author of The Triumph of Christianity and the author or editor of more than 30 books, including the New York Times bestsellers Misquoting Jesus and How Jesus Became God. Ehrman is a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a leading authority on the New Testament and the history of early Christianity.
  11. Tertullian: Douglas Powell, Tertullianists and Cataphrygians, Vigiliae Christianae 29 (1975)

The Posture of the Heart – With John Walton

Posted by expedition44 on

I have come to cringe when people say things like, God is only concerned about your heart. Or perhaps using the semi-excusive example of David having a “heart after God” all the while being a murderer and adulterer (which clearly doesn’t match up with the character of God). I likely wouldn’t let my kids hang out with him. Clearly so many scriptures continue to share how important it is to have a heart for God, and I would fully agree, even though I view complete devotion as so much more than just the motives of the heart.

  1. Matthew 6:21: “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
  2. Proverbs 3:5: “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”
  3. Proverbs 4:23: “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.”
  4. Romans 12:2: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (a quick word study of “nous” will link the heart and mind)
  5. Proverbs 23:26: “My son, give me your heart and let your eyes delight in my ways.”
  6. Psalms 51:10: “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.”
  7. Psalms 73:26: “My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.”
  8. Philippians 4:7: “And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”

John Walton has been a good friend and lifelong mentor to me that started back when I was a freshman at Moody Bible Institute in 1993, and I asked for his thoughts on the subject as I continue to wrestle through them. We went back and forth working through some things that have influenced my opinion in this conversation. I will indicate his words in our private conversation using quotation and suggest articles for further study.

To start with, I might even suggest, as I allude to in nearly every article, that we might need to rethink a few things according to a better hermeneutic towards the exegesis of the text rather than popular opinion or tradition. John recently wrote a book entitled Wisdom for Faithful Reading that I would suggest starting with. John suggests that the popular text for David having a heart after God’s heart is usually misinterpreted. In 1 Sam 13:14 the expression used there is used elsewhere in the OT (as well as often in the ANE) not to describe the inclinations of the king (one who pursues knowledge and relationship with the God), but to describe the sovereign choice of the deity (who for his own reasons has chosen the king to rule). So, the claim is not that David pursues the heart of God as a spiritually mature person rather than pursuing his own ends; instead, David is the man that God has pursued with his own criteria in mind rather than Saul, who was someone who met the criteria of the people. It is a statement about God’s sovereignty, not about David’s spirituality or piety. It is therefore not something that we can aspire to in our own lives. He has written an excellent article on this topic here.

It was interesting that in the Old Testament a great amount of wealth was used to construct the temple and tabernacle (it is somewhat ambiguous as to whether this was God’s asking or solely the doing of the people in an effort to worship God similar to the way the rest of the world honored and appeased the gods). This wealth has no value to God, but the gold meant something to them. The gracious donation or perhaps giving it up was possibly viewed as an outward sign of the internal heart. John would say that “We honor God with our extravagance in giving that which is of value to us. God does not need what we give.” (But seems to be honored by the giving through a pure and undefiled heart.)

John continues, “we can also see a similar picture of this heart in giving when Jesus responded to Judas’ expressed concern for the poor in the context of Jesus’ feet being anointed. Yes, the money could have gone to the poor, but expressing the worthiness of Jesus through the extravagant expenditure with no return was considered not only legitimate, but commendable.”

Today I often wonder whether God smiles at megachurch budgets and building campaigns that resemble much of the world in the name of Jesus. The scripture would suggest that the answers might lie in the motive of the heart rather than on the extravagance of the expenditure. “God smiled on the extravagance of the woman who anointed his feet with oil, and, since he called for great extravagance in the Tabernacle and Temple, I assume he smiled on those projects, but only to the degree that they were carried out with his honor in mind, not their own.” We could also take into account the widow’s mite or the widow’s offering as presented in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:41–44, Luke 21:1–4) Jesus clearly “smiled on” her and commended her sacrifice—an issue of the heart and extravagant even in its lack of relative worth.

Often it seems that what might at one time be a pure motive becomes defiled and abhorrent to the Lord. Some might say that the golden calf was fashioned as an emblem animal or medium to God or possibly a pedestal for the Lord to be invited to come down and dwell amongst the Israelites. However, God is still displeased as John explains that this was a violation of the second commandment. In a similar way the Tower of Babel may have started out as an invitation for God to dwell with the people (which seems to be God’s desire – tabernacling with His people); but then becomes defiled also by the disobedience of the hearts. (Read more about Babel from John’s account.)

John would share that the medium is the message, but motives can corrupt the medium (heart). Yet, any given medium may be used well or badly by different people at different times. Jesus gives an example as he criticizes how the temple is being used (casting out moneychangers) revealing their impure motives yet affirming the value of the temple when rightly perceived (as His father’s house.)

Often, I wonder about the progression to which we allow the defiling of our heart’s original pure intentions. Some things have the original intent of honoring the Lord but quickly become an extravagance that only serves our own egos or only seeks to oblige God.

Spending in the name of God is hard to figure out sometimes. I have so many questions for God, was the church ever intended to be the religious bank it has become? (Acts seems to suggest people directly giving to the needs of the body not the church acting as the collection agency, but there are several passages that may speak otherwise.) What does He think of a modern church budget that is 50% or even 95% salaries and mortgage? Why isn’t the church caring for widows, the poor, and the broken? (Our “evil” government seems to do this much better than the global church.) We are told to not have judgmental hearts, but to test these things by the spirit and know them by their fruit. One of my good friends leads a church in a lower income area and runs out of seats every Sunday, has leaky roofs over kid’s heads, and can hardly pay the measly mortgage every month while the megachurch the next town over is spending 75K on new LED screens and smoke machines every other year with a tech budget that is 10x more than the net worth of my friend’s entire organization. What would God say?

Sometimes it is hard to see whether the extravagance happening around us in the name of the Lord is an outward sign of a great heart, or an idolatrous tower. Sorry, no “answers” today… just a rambling of my heart!

More on my good friend John Walton.

Covenant Relationship

Posted by expedition44 on

Marriage is a covenant relationship instituted by the Lord. The term covenant in Hebrew (berith) has a literal meaning of ‘a cut where blood flows’ and is used to accurately portray the strongest of all possible relationship structures we could divinely engage in. This word and concept is one of the largest hermeneutics in scripture and is a necessary component for true revelation of the scriptures, the nature of God, and our new life in Christ Jesus and the basis for all relationships.

Written by Dr. Steve Cassell and edited by Dr. Will Ryan

When I was younger I was entangled with the ‘thug’ or ‘gang’ life because, well, I was stupid. I can almost hear the diverse reactions to that revelation among the readership… from guffaws, to eye-rolls, and possibly a few raised eyebrows of shock. Nevertheless, it is an accurate historical reality. The main compelling factor propelling me in that direction was the deep longing of my heart for a real, committed relationship. One of the first things I learned about gang life was the mantra, “Blood in, blood out”. This just simply meant that you were required to shed blood (your own in a self-sacrificial activity like gang-banging in another gang’s territory that would likely get you thrashed or even killed) or the shedding of innocent blood in an armed robbery or potentially a murder. There was no way into the gang without bloodshed. Once you were in, there was no way out without bloodshed. This mostly meant that you were going to die if you ever wanted out, but in some instances, the exiting member would be ‘allowed’ to go through a gauntlet-style beating that would usually hospitalize them and complicate their health for the remainder of their life. I know it sounds barbaric, but I was desperate for authentic relationships. Ultimately (by the enormous grace of God) I chose a different path which mostly had to do with a God-sent gift sashaying into my cosmos by the name of Kay… who is now my covenant bride. We are most definitely committed unto the blood of self-sacrifice to one another without hesitation or consideration.

Suppose you, our reader, are married or intend to enter into the sacred and divine institution of a marriage covenant at some point in the future. In that case, these words must have a powerful resonation in your soul (nephesh, psyche). I have been doing full or part-time ministry for almost thirty years and the degradation of the covenantal aspect of marriage has been nearly destroyed by our ever-darkening world and the decay of basic humanity as we are propagandized into some animalistic attitudes towards relationships and society.

When a couple is joined in Holy Matrimony the vow is something akin to:

“I swear to honor and love you;

            In riches and in poverty,

            In sickness and in health,

            For the better or the worse,

            Until death do we part,

            So help me God.”

Those are not just words… they are a covenant vow unto another person sworn in the presence of and under the submission to our Great God. In actuality, in antiquity, this was a “blood in, blood out” solemn oath giving God (and the gathered witnesses) the right to punish, even unto the shedding of blood, either participant if they violate that covenant vow. God’s perfect intention in marriage was ‘blood in’ (the blood of the hymen on the wedding night) and ‘blood out’ which was the ‘until death do we part’ provision.

The first thing we, as the image-bearers of God to a broken mirror of the world, need to embrace is doing our marriages the way God says, not the way culture or our fickle emotions scream. If that is a place you dare to transverse with Doc Ryan and I, then I double-dog-dare you to read on…

Glad you are here this far!

Since you have determined to do the hard thing and stay in this message to this point, firstly I want to applaud you for being willing to be a hero (heroes do hard things) and also warn you that you will be shunned as a rarity in our modern world. But consider that God loves to use heroes and rare people to do great things.

______________________________________________

“You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name.” Deuteronomy 10:20

Throughout the Bible God uses the relationship of Marriage to give us an earthly or physical example of our relationship to God and others. You don’t have to be married to glean from this discussion. God positions himself as the forever faith pursuer, the lover that will never leave us despite our shortcomings and continual failure and perhaps even unfaithfulness. Love, compassion, grace, mercy, and forgiveness are just a snapshot of this unending example to us. The Hebrew verb for cling is davaq and is the word used for glue. The implication is longevity, reliability, and consistency in faithful commitment.

What’s important is this:  a husband is to cling to his wife in the same way that we are to cling to God.  There are several other verses in the Bible that portray the same analogy.  In each one, God is represented by the woman, not the man; the scriptures seem to imply a reciprocal role of equality that compliments the relationship by each person’s gifts. A reciprocal circle of grace accepted and freely returned.

The example of covenant relationship is not only exhibited or modeled in the biblical marriage through scripture, but then serves in many ways as an archetype of our relationship with God and between others merging the gap between heaven and earth. We see a glimmer or foreshadow of what all relationships will be in an eschatological sense in a recreated heaven and earth to come. A return to Eden. – Will Ryan Th.D.

______________________________________________

Every relationship is regularly challenged by conflict. There is an undeniable truth to this statement: “Familiarity breeds contempt”. It is true in many Christians relating to their relationship with God and also true in human relationships. The time of Jesus’ life and ministry was regularly hindered by the masses of people who could not reconcile the idea of Jesus being all human and all God at the same time. The majority of people in His time rejected Him because they justified their devaluation of Him based upon His humanity.

John 8:48-53 ESV

The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 

Due to the conflict these religious hypocrites could not reconcile they all missed out on the greatest blessing, the greatest gift, and the greatest possible salvation that would give them the greatest life ever. Conflict steals away the blessings of God from one’s life. As people of the Kingdom of our God, we need to walk out a better way of dealing with ‘conflict and resolve’.

Luke 17:1 NKJV

Then He said to the disciples, “It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come!

Knowing it is impossible to do life without having conflict, we should be desirous to navigate this territory supernaturally. To begin that process we first need to answer the question: “Where do conflicts come from?”

In my attempt at brevity, I am going to only give you the ‘big two’.

  • Pride (me first, my wants, my ways, my control)
  • Lack of Understanding (comprehension of your covenant partner)

Let us take up arms against the first evil monster hungry to devour us as its prey… Pride.

Pride has two main expressions. The first we are all mostly familiar with is the overt me-istic, I-centric expression that displays itself in self-aggrandizing, self-focused, self-concerned, self-serving, and narcissistic type attitudes that usually turn our guts when we are confronted with it. Sadly, our culture today has turned pride into an object of worship (by abominable parades and a month-long holiday celebrating perversity). But the scriptures and the life of Christ make it uber clear that pride is an evil foe of everything good and right.

James 4:5-10 ESV

Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.”

These statements are echoed by Peter (1 Peter 5:5-7) and quoted from the wisdom of Proverbs (3:34). The stories of narcissistic pride destroying people in the scriptures are on nearly every page from the fall of the divine couple, Adam and Eve looking for their own way into the life of God, to the fall of the divine being ‘Lucifer’ into the wretched Satan as the arch-enemy of God and man, to the mind-numbing ignorance of David’s adulterous murder account of self-gratification resulting in a dead baby and a civil war, to the sadness of Judas selling Jesus for a pittance of silver coins. 

A lesser-known expression of pride has the same dangers but is a bit more subtle. This is the prideful attitude of self-debasing words, actions, or identity. A person who operates in insecurity, low self-imaging, fearful social interactions, sheepish or shy behaviors, and isolation as an introvert is equally operating in pride. There are just at the other end of the spectrum. I illustrate it this way: 

PR-I-DE.

Anything that has “I” in the center is pride. Whether it takes the form of PR-omoting the “I” or in the DE-basing of “I”… both are “I” in the center. Covenant is a commitment to lay down your “I” for another as Christ exemplified. The definitive aspect of what separates covenant from contractural- or performance-based relationships is the self-sacrificial commitment. In a secular performance-based contract of marriage, the normal interaction will be, “You do this for me and I will do that for you”. That is basically a business transaction where we are ‘purchasing’ the affection or performance of our spouse. The Bible has a word for this type of faux marriage: concubine.

Proverbs 13:10a KJV

Only by pride cometh contention

Only… that is a big word. The cause of any and all contention is pride. Yikes!

When I counsel marriages in this the most normal response is, “No way!” Most folks do not think the contention in their marriage is their fault… it has to be that OTHER person. The scriptures argue that it takes two to tango, and it would behoove us to agree with the scriptures.

James 3:16 Aramaic Bible in Plain English

For where there is envy and contention there is also chaos and every evil thing.

I often refer to this as the ‘other’ 3:16 verse that is WAY less memorized. John 3:16 makes us have warm fuzzies, James 3:16 makes us angry… Jesus said the truth will make you free (John 8:32) but in my experience, before the truth liberates you it tends to make you REALLY mad. Pride is the ONLY root of ALL contention. Where there is contention there is chaos and EVERY evil thing. (Think about that for a second… EVERY evil thing… like sickness, abuse, poverty, anger, oppression, depression, sin…) Does that statement illustrate any of the areas of your marriage?

The second cause of conflict in our covenant relationships is a lack of understanding. You do not know what you do not know. When we do not understand, the natural human response is to assume, analyze, or project our own opinions into the circumstances or motives. “I know why you did that! It is because you think I am stupid!” “No… no, I do not think you are stupid… I just wanted to do something nice for you.”

One of the most precarious places we can attempt to transverse is thinking we know another person’s motives. Kay and I have established a ‘rule’ that we are not allowed to assume one another’s emotions, intentions, or motives. It has actually affected the overall culture of Beloved Church because we have adopted the statement, “That person is blankety-blank at me right now.” What we mean by that is we recognize that something is going on in their heart but we will not speculate in arrogance as to what it is exactly. It requires communication, honesty, courage to be transparent, and a relational commitment to sincerely listen to one another.

But spiritual and covenantal ‘understanding’ is much larger than just a psychologically invented, and sociologically driven ‘model’ of interpersonal communication tactics. That is worldly, and frankly, arrogant as well. 

Proverbs 11:2 BSB

When pride comes, disgrace follows, but with humility comes wisdom.

The divine weapon against pride is humility. Humility is the most virtuous character that is the most shunned and avoided in all of Christianity. The more humble we engage in relationships with one another the more fruitful, intimate, and unified they will ultimately be. Humility is a necessary component to spiritually based relationships, as in marriage covenants, because without humility true communication cannot exist.

1 Corinthians 2:11 BSB
For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him? So too, no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

If you look closely at that text you will see an eternal principle being expressed: it is only by the Spirit that any one of us can understand the heart. That means our own heart as well as the heart of our covenant spouse. Humility is required to embrace a principle like that because human wisdom and psychological analysis will defiantly argue that our cognitive functions are primitive chemical processes as a derivative of whatever emotion or disposition we randomly are being controlled by. No, Beloved reader. We were created much more complex than science has the capacity to embrace. ONLY by the Spirit of God can we rightly and effectively navigate the deep waters of each other’s souls.

Proverbs 20:5 BSB

The intentions of a man’s heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out.

When the Bible declares that something is deep, you can bet your bottom dollar it is DEEP. Notice though, that the way to draw that sweet cool water that is in that deep well out is through the ‘bucket’ of understanding. There is much strength and determined effort involved with lowering a bucket on a rope into a deep well and then, hand-over-hand, lifting that heavy bucket back up for the reward of a refreshing drink. The Spirit of God is Who gives us the ability (grace) to ‘understand’ each other in an accurate way. This should convince us of the great importance of knowing each other through the Spirit and not only by the flesh (or psychologically analyzed personalities). 

2 Corinthians 5:16

So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 

Our regard for one another needs to be of a spiritual valuation, not a carnal or natural one. This is only possible by intimacy with the Spirit where we are humbly submitted to allowing God to help us ‘understand’ our mate. This imperative to comprehend our spouse goes much further than just having a happy marriage.

1 Peter 3:7 ESV

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

The commitment to live with one another without contention, in humility, and submitted to the intimacy that can only come through the Spirit is necessary for our overall spiritual/soulical health beyond just our marital well-being. This verse says plainly that your prayer life will be hindered if this is not engaged in properly. You can search the scriptures and you will not find another place that declares a more direct reason for hindered prayers. That should impress upon us the needful resolve to guard our marriages voraciously, in these ways.

Doc Ryan and I are deeply invested in the covenantal realm for the body of Christ, especially in the arena of the marriage covenant. This is why we have penned this teaching together and sacrificed our time and energy to sow into your lives. We pray that your life is impacted and blessed by these words are truths to the degree that they inspire true repentance and change in whatever places your Good Father and your covenant community is shepherding you into.

In Great Love,

Dr Steve and Dr. Ryan

Mothers Day and Abraham Sacrificing Issac Part 2

Posted by expedition44 on

Have you ever noticed that the very first occurrence of the word “LOVE” in scripture refers to Abraham’s passion for His son Isaac? The word is used to first describe the long-awaited child of Sarah. But does that feeling change over time? In our previous post (PART 1) we wrestled with Abraham’s “love” for Isaac and noted the hardships that came into the picture. Perhaps this love was perpetrated more from Sarah than Abraham. In Hebrew the first word of a sentence often serves as a guidepost of the main thought. In the same way an “idea” might be introduced in such a way to show significance. It could be that the word “LOVE” is first used as contronym form. This is often found in Hebraic writing forms as an emphasis of the opposite strengths. I have written a good deal about Hebraic contronyms. In this case we might be introduced to the story using the word “LOVE” for the first time to stress what God’s “love” shown in His character looks like next to the “broken love” of the world.

This is the story of archetype faith, indeed, it was this very hope in God’s promise that moved God to rename Abram to Abraham, and Sarai to Sarah. But who was the real Archetype of Faith?

In Jewish tradition, the drama of the sacrifice of Abraham’s beloved son is called the Akedah (עֲקֵדָה, “binding”), which as we have pointed out is traditionally regarded as the supreme test of Abraham’s obedience and faith. The blast of the shofar is intended to remind us of God’s gracious atonement provided through the substitutionary sacrifice of the lamb (as well as to “drown out” the voice of the accuser).  In this way, the Akedah represents the truth of the Gospel, and how God’s attribute of justice was “overcome” by His attribute of compassion (Psalm 85:10).  We see some truth to these traditional interpretations of atonement but also have pointed out that there is much more to be considered; not to mention some theological problems with the traditional views having to do with substitutionary atonement and “power over” retributive justice problems.

One aspect that is often overlooked is Sarah. Perhaps she is in many regards a better archetype of faith, or dare we even say role model of faith, than Abraham was. It is no secret that Expedition 44 believes in the return to the ideals of Eden. In this way, we see the dual covenant partnership of men and women, husband and wife, and as equal ambassadors of the royal priesthood that we were set apart to be. Today, as we celebrate mothers, we want to take a deeper look at the life of Sarah in this story.

“After these things…”
We always want to build on the context of the our previous posts (PART 1) discussion. The story of the offering of Isaac, Abraham’s “promised seed,” begins with the statement, “After these things God tested Abraham…” (Gen. 22:1). The phrase, “after these things” (וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה) in Hebrew connects to the next image that “Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba and called there on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God. And Abraham sojourned many days in the land of the Philistines” (Gen. 21:33-34). The Tamarisk tree here recalls the tree of life that is figuratively being restored in hopes of bringing back order that was lost. This is a sign from early on that Abraham believed that God was making a way to return to the Edenic plan that was lost; which in some part meant a return to the equality of the royal priesthood. This is “reverse the curse” language and imagery.

———

Sarah gave birth to Isaac when she was 91 years old (Gen. 17:17, 21), and she later died when Isaac was 36 years old, at the age 127 (Gen. 23:1). The Bible doesn’t give us the cause of death, but the midrash Tanchuma says that Sarah “died from shock.” Jewish tradition states that her soul departed from her. Genesis 23:2 says “And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to cry for her.” When we read this in Hebrew, we find something the English doesn’t reveal, the text of the phrase “and to cry for her” (וְלִבְכּתָה) is written with a diminutive letter Kaf, which scholars ascribe as Abraham’s mourning for his deceased wife to have been restrained. Could Abraham have believed in faith that God would raise her from the dead, does Hebrews 11 suggest this? Or is there another reason for restraint?

Have you ever considered that it is Sarah, not Isaac who was actually the sacrificed of the Akedah? Some have even suggested that Sarah prayed to God: “Let me die for my son; let me die in place of my son…” Could Sarah’s love have been so great it brought Isaac back to life from the dead? Various sages wonder why Sarah lived only 127 years while Abraham lived to be 175, that is, 48 years more. Perhaps it is ironic that Sarah’s years amounted to the number of years Abraham lived as ha-Ivri (הָעִבְרִי), in Hebraic thought this is a term that identifies his relationship to the one true God (some might describe this as being saved). Since Abraham was 48 years old when he came to believe, and a convert is regarded as a newborn, then Abraham lived (as a believer) exactly 127 years, precisely as long as did Sarah. There are some implications on Calvinism as she is often regarded as walking in faith from birth, but that is another post.

Essentially, we are given then from the text that Sarah walked in Faith all of her days and Abraham did not, but matched her days in faith as a sign of the “return” to the equality of the tree as to the Royal Priesthood as it was intended in Eden.

———

In Jewish tradition Sarah is one of four most beautiful women who ever lived (both inwardly and outwardly.) Agree with it or not, the Rabbis asserted that by the time she gave birth to Isaac, she was regarded as virtually sinless (Bereshit Rabbah 58:1).  The Talmud (Megillah 14a) explains that Iscah was another name for Sarah (Gen. 11:29), meaning “to gaze.”  The Hebrew word for face is “panim” (פָּנִים) and is written the same way as the Hebrew word for inside, “penim” (פְּנִים), suggesting that Sarah’s beauty was both external and internal. You may be aware that Sarah is described often as the first prophetess. This comes in part from a word play in Hebrew as people enjoyed “gazing upon her beauty” her real beauty was that she had the ability to “gaze” into the heavens; later this is what prophets described as “seers” who had the ability to see more clearly or perhaps even from the eyes of God. We believe this is still a spiritual gift that some might describe as a spiritual sense; we also believe that when you have the Holy Spirit in you, you have this sense. Like every spiritual gift some have it more than others. Some scholars would argue that Sarah could have been different in that she may have been born with this sense or gift in a mature state.

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?

[NOTE: Some believe our spiritual names exist before time itself and that God simply reveals them to us, not necessarily renaming us as we are “His” from inception. some have concluded that this is part of the world taking us and then God reclaiming us.]

The Midrash states a divine presence such as a cloud, hovered over her tent, as a foreshadow of the cloud that walked with Israel in the desert. Many scholars have alluded that Sarah was without a doubt an equal to Abraham, and perhaps even more in tune with God. You might remember that when Sarah sent Ishmael away Abraham was unsure, and God had to tell him to listen to her voice in Genesis 21:12. Remember when Abraham lied about here saying, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelek king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her. Then the Angel told Abraham not to worry because she was surrounded by a divine presence.

There is one last thing that needs to be mentioned. Sarah represents the “life” of Abraham. As I mentioned, Abraham outlives her by 48 years. But did you ever notice that this seems to be the end of the narrative voice for Abraham in the Bible? When Sarah dies, He might as well die; and perhaps He does in God’s eyes. When you read carefully you find that even though we continue to “know” or “be told” more of Abraham’s story there is no further dialogue recorded between God and Abraham after Sarah’s death. It is also pretty crazy that the last story we have of Abraham which is seeking a wife for Isaac is noted as the result of Sarah’s will for her son. She was also the first person to be buried in the Promised land; you might even say she was the seed of what was to become the set apart nation. I often wonder what the world would look like today if this would have come to fruition. If the Seed would have given way to the Royal Priesthood and Israel would have represented God and reclaimed the rest of the world bringing us back to Edenic life of walking with the Lord.

“And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, The LORD, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.” Exodus 34:6-7

It has been said that behind every great man is a greater woman. It certainly seems that this was true in this story, and I can certainly say that about both of our wives! I believe that naturally mothers possess a closer natural connection to life and God as Exodus 34 describes Him. In many ways it seems like even though Eve may have taken an apple, men have in many ways continued and “LEAD” the march of the downward spiral of this earth. Today I want to celebrate motherhood and the innate compassion of the female. I believe Sarah towered over Abraham in the spiritual realms and today I believe in the upside-down kingdom; that even though women have been repressed in so many ways, they are the ones that continue to gently shepherd and disciple the church from the quiet – which is the preeminent calling of the kingdom. It is always interesting to me that most Men (even in an ultra-progressive world) won’t demand to not work 4o hours a week or more and stay home to shepherd children; yet in many ways Biblical women have demanded that their children be shepherded by their Godly principle rather than take a chance with handing them over to the discipleship of the world. It seems that a lot of the women in our lives have been given better eyes to see such as was embodied by the story of Sarah. Today, and I pray every day to come, we embrace, cherish, and hold high the great women of faith in our lives.

Eschet Chayil – This post is dedicated to our wives and the amazing women of TOV faith.

Dr Ryan and Dr. Matt of Expedition 44

“setapart” -The TOV- Community Calling

Posted by expedition44 on

People often ask what Expedition 44 is and I think I answer the question differently every time someone asks (you can read in its entirety what expedition 44 means here.) I believe the answer is similar to the way Paul expresses the attaining of knowledge through scripture leading to personal intimacy with God as the mystery of the Gospel in Colossians 1. As there isn’t just one way of expressing the deepness of the gospel; similarly, there isn’t simply one explanation of what Expedition 44 means. The simple phrase “expedition 44” is an idiom that represents the entire essence of the journey of sanctification to become truly set apart from the world and fully given unto the LORD. This expressions also points to everything that God gave and is reclaiming that is described as “TOV” or good.

In devout traditional and Messianic Judaism, for generations they have been committed to readings of the Bible daily as a way to train their children to hand down the precepts of holy living but also as a way to continually live wholly committed to the Lord each day. The word parashat (which means portion -a shortened form of Parashat HaShavua) describes the section of scripture that is to be read each day in traditional and messianic devout Judaic circles. In this way the Bible is perhaps mapped out such as a curriculum scope and sequence would be for teaching your family how to live for the LORD.

Today many traditional and Messianic Jews follow a daily reading in their personal lives, but their are still regular and daily public readings in many communities. “Torah Reading” often referred Biblically to the ceremony of removing the scroll (or scrolls) from the Torah ark, chanting the appropriate excerpt with special cantillation (trope), and returning the scroll(s) to the ark. It is also commonly called “laining” (which means “to read”).[1] Regular public reading of the Torah was introduced by Ezra the Scribe after the return of the Judean exiles from the Babylonian captivity (c. 537 BCE), as described in the Book of Nehemiah.[2] In the modern era, Orthodox and some Messianic Jews practice Torah reading according to a set procedure almost unchanged since the Talmudic era.[3]

Every once in a while, there is a pattern to which evangelical Christians get back into traditional OT or Jewish Hebraic customs. Everyone probably knows someone that has done this, and churches often lead similarly by doing seder dinners, or partaking in some of the other OT initiatives. There seems to be a regular debate in Evangelical Christianity as to whether Christians may benefit from such observance. For me it was attending Moody Bible Institute in the 1990’s when it was the center training for Jews for Jesus. I became aware of the reason the devotion to Torah pointed people towards the Lord in regular reminders of living holy. In this way the law might be seen as a guidepost to keep people on tract until the Messiah would reconcile all things through His atoning work and once again offer intimacy to unblemished relationships to walk with the father as had been lost in Eden. This path is called sanctification and leads to a renewed eschatological heaven and earth and re-instated Eden like kingdom both in this life and into the next. But it isn’t so much about the distant future as it is about living out each and every day for the Lord, the here and the now of devotion unto the LORD.

Today some wonder if we as modern Christians would be better off spiritually in devotion unto the LORD returning to the way of the Torah; I and many others feel that particularly evangelical Western Christianity would seem to be far better off returning to the prescription of Torah in seeking devotion to God than simply believing that we no longer need to exercise or are bound to any of the Old Testament ways of pursuing sanctification. In many ways we have failed to live out our NT calling as those given to a holy royal priesthood far worse than the ancient Israelites that God handed over to exile that didn’t have the revelation of the Messiah or the New Testament.

We are supposed to have spiritually surpassed the ancient vestiges of old, but in reality, have fallen far from them.

To be clear, once Jesus came and commissioned us to be disciples, the mission was to leave everything of the world on the beach and completely follow Him. This was a returning to our original intent in the garden to walk (halach) daily in intimacy with the Lord. Our daily devotion or (work) would be to keep and cultivate what had been given. Today through Christ we are commissioned back to the original Edenic calling as a set apart royal priesthood whose mission should be to walk in devotion unto the Lord keeping and cultivating or reclaiming what was lost or defiled and giving it new life and purpose in the Jesus Kingdom. But some have deducted that we don’t simply not meet this description, but we even seem “less devout” than those under the Law that were handed over to their sinful premonitions and experienced exile. Where does that “put us” 2000 years later?

Expedition 44 is about not only returning to perhaps practicing some of the ancient ways to get “back on track”, but to then fulfill our New Exodus calling to return to an “ALL IN” or “SETAPART” way of I Peter 1:9 commissioned living as those claiming and living out the life that Jesus offered to us as disciples.

This year the Parashat Emor is the 31st weekly Torah portion in the annual Jewish cycle of Torah reading or to be read on 8 May 2024 / 10 Iyyar 5784. As I shared earlier, parashat simply means portion and “Emor” means to say or speak over. You hear parts of this in evangelical Christianity (particularly in charismatic circles) today by speaking into or over someone as a statement of faith or belief. This is sometimes associated with the “word of faith” movement. There are many modern suggestions to this such as the recent song by Charity Gayle – I Speak Jesus. We often speak “Jesus” into or over others believing the words of the Spirit will manifest. Last week at TOV we did this over our children.

The “emor” text is found most specifically in Leviticus 21, but there are many texts that also support this such as Ezekiel 44. (The 44 is not a coincidence but that’s a longer explanation). In Hebrew a complete text is often defined by the first word such as in the Shema – “hear”… this text is similarly is “speak”… emor el-haKohenim benei Aharon, “say to the priests, the sons of Aaron…” The text then goes on to give instruction on several things such as service in the tabernacle, prohibition of pagan nations, and lots of specific kehen (priestly) requirements. The charge of Leviticus 21 is for the Kohen (priests) to lead the way for a nation of people that are to be set apart from the world unto the LORD.

To be specific, much of the text is specifically towards Aaron’s descendants. There are three “classes” within the structure of Jewish society: the Kohen, the Levi and the Israelite. The Kohanim are the physical descendants of Aaron and would offer sacrifices and one of which would function as the high priest. Contrary to most people’s understanding, the other descendants of Levi were assigned to other roles of the temple service (maintenance related – call them the custodians of the temple, notice the foreshadow of Christ type humility, -they served the people). The Kohanim, then, are a subset of the Tribe of Levi.

Some have wondered why the Kohanim were “set apart” in this way from the other Levites. The Bible doesn’t really give us the answer, but oral and rabbinical tradition says they refused to contribute gold or partake in the sin of the Golden Calf and were so zealous for the LORD that they slew 3,000 of the instigators of the rebellion. (The golden calf likely started off as being a pedestal inviting Yahweh to ascend to as a throne but eventually became worshipped by the people and likely some of the Levitival priests instead of Yahweh Himself. This is what actually became the sin, not the building of the calf.) Previously, it was also said that the Levites continued the practice of circumcision while in Egypt, when the other tribes of Israel had abandoned the practice. Perhaps after the golden calf account the kohanim were set apart as those that were undefiled and would “make a way” or “make right” or represent the people before Yahweh. They functioned as the remnant that represented God to the people and the people to God.

That was actually the calling to “all Israel”, but they failed immediately and thus only a small percentage lived out the calling. You may remember God in Deuteronomy 9:13-14, God saying to Moses, “Let me alone that I may destroy them.” Israel failed God very early in the story and continued to do so over and over. Today according to I Peter we are all charged with this royal calling of priesthood. That’s what x44 is all about.

Kiddush HaShem (“sanctifying the Name,”) means that we honor the Name of the LORD by giving up our lives to and for Him. Christ is our example of complete sacrificial humility painting the picture of how then we are asked to be image bearers as living sacrifices. Kiddush HaShem (“sanctifying the Name,”) means that we honor the Name of the LORD by giving up our lives. We die to ourselves that we may receive full life in Jesus.

To the ancient Hebrew, when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were faced with the fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar’s design, they did not presume that the LORD would perform a miracle for them, but fully expected to give up their lives for the sake of kiddush HaShem in Daniel 3; but God does something more, He offers life where death was presumed. This foreshadows the NT when Jesus leads us in a “new exodus” to give up our lives (lay them down) and accept new life in and through Him. This new life takes us back and reinstates us to the original priestly calling of Eden. To be a “living sacrifice” wholly and completely given to the Lord.

The second part of the parashah lists the eight main mo’edim which are the appointed times of the Jewish calendar where families are “set apart” in what is referred to as mikra’ei kodesh or “times in which holiness is proclaimed” (Lev. 23:2). These are the yamim tovim, in English we simply refer to these as Jewish Holidays.

  • The Sabbath – weekly observance and day of rest where your family comes together with Yahweh.
  • Pesach also called “Passover.”
  • Unleavened Bread.
  • Firstfruits also called Reishit Katzir.
  • Shavuot also called “Pentecost” or “Weeks.”
  • Yom Teru’ah also called “Rosh Hashanah.”
  • Yom Kippur also called the “Day of Atonement.”
  • Sukkot also called “Tabernacles” or “Booths.”

These were intended to bring your family out of the world “back” to being set apart before the LORD. Can you imagine life as a Christian today if we set aside from Friday night until Saturday night to simply do nothing but promote Jesus in our families? And then strategically planned 7 “vacations” a year with the sole plan of living each day as best we can in accordance to what God has given us. Christianity might be viewed differently. But the reality of this is that we were even called to more than that in the Great Commission of Jesus to discipleship.

When Christ calls disciples, the intention wasn’t just to be called back to God once a week and 7 times a year; but was even more, to never return to the world. You don’t need 7 times a year or even a special day weekly to be reminded to get out of the world if you never return to the world. Therefore, the new exodus was to completely be set apart, more than what the law called for! So fast forward to Jesus and the great commission to be and make disciples – modern Western Christianity seems to be waaaay off the mark. Therefore, some would assert that we as 21st century Christians may need to return to the ancient ways (first fruits thinking of the law) to get back on track and then eventually we can live completely set apart as Jesus’ disciples into the new royal priesthood calling reclaiming what was lost into the New Kingdom.

If this article sounds like a journey you would like to begin pursuing, truly making the Yahweh the LORD of your life and finding the course of discipleship with Him; we have a community for you. The community of TOV. A community devoted to seeking what it means to live wholly given to Jesus – ALLIN.

  1.  “Leyenen”. Yiddish Word of the Week. Leyenen is the popular term for the public reading of sections of the Torah and megiles […] on Shabes and holidays. […] a designated member of the community (the leyener) who would have to spend time memorising the proper way to read the text
  2.  “8”, Nehemiah, Tanakh, Mechon Mamre.
  3. ^ The exceptions being that most communities (except for Yemenites) ceased in the early Middle Ages to translate the Torah reading into Aramaic as was done in Talmudic times. In addition, in Talmudic times, the one receiving an Aliyah would read his own portion, but most communities today have an institution of a Baal keriah who reads on behalf of all of those receiving Aliyot.

How to say TOV

Posted by expedition44 on

I remember one time when I was young, my father took me to hear a great lecturer on the Shroud of Turin. The gentlemen that was giving the lecture had a Ph.D. in something and came off as very intelligent. It was one of the first times in my young life I ever heard someone speak with this kind of wisdom or understanding. I remember thinking, “maybe someday.” Well perhaps I have arrived, perhaps not. Some people know that the Biblical names we say in English aren’t really accurate. They aren’t the way they would have been pronounced in Hebrew or Greek they are the English versions of the words. For instance, in this lecture the scholar kept saying, “Yeshayahu.” I asked my dad what that meant and He whispered, “Hebrew for Isaiah.” Little did I know this would end up turning into a significant part of my life path.

Biblical Hebrew (or classical Hebrew) was an ancient language that some say emerged in the 10th century B.C (or 1,000 B.C.) and perhaps earlier. Some believe it was the primary language given by God. During the Roman Period Biblical Hebrew “evolved” beyond recognition. The Jewish Diaspora (or spreading of the Jews) changed the pronunciations to be unrecognizable in many ways. Languages got mixed & new dialects were made. Eventually Biblical Hebrew got so minced that it was unrecognizable and basically “died.” But it’s even more complicated, Jeff Benner addresses the issue like this,

“The Hebrew texts of the Bible were originally written with only the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which only represent consonantal sounds. As no vowel sounds were originally included in the text, they had to be memorized. As you can imagine with the Diaspora and passing on of the language orally in through different dialect and slang things became very difficult to know exactly what words were what. Around the 10th Century AD, a group of Jewish scribes called Masorites, created a system of dots and dashes, called nikkudot or vowel pointings and added these to the hebrew text. These vowel pointings served to supply the vowel sounds to the text in order to codify the pronunciation. The Masorites also included notes in the margins of the text. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew manuscript known to exist is the Masoretic text called the Aleppo Codex which was written in 826 A.D. This text is considered the most authoritative Hebrew manuscript and all future editions are based on this text.”

But the problem therein lies that by 826 A.D. most scholars would believe we had already lost the core of what Biblical Hebrew once was. Are you starting to see the issues?

Hebrew experienced a revival in the 19th century – and there was a push to bring back the Hebrew language, what we know was “Modern Hebrew” came as a result.

This was part of the Zionist Movement, or National Revival Movement to create a state/home for Jews and was an instrumental part of dispensationalism. During this movement, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, a lexicographer (dictionary writer/editor), prepared the first modern Hebrew dictionary. With the new dictionary, people started using Hebrew again and speaking 1 language. Because of the influence of European languages (remember, the Jewish Diaspora and evolving mentioned above?), Hebrew changed as a language. By the medieval period, we know of three main oral reading traditions: Babylonian, Palestinian, and Tiberian. Numerous medieval biblical manuscripts have survived representing these oral reading traditions with different vocalization sign systems.

(SOURCE: A comprehensive description of Babylonian vocalization is presented by Yisrael Yeivin The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization -Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985).

Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew are different. For instance, the basic word for “I” changed, and words from outside languages came into modern Hebrew, essentially, a Biblical Hebrew “speaker” wouldn’t understand a Modern one and vice versa. In this way a someone that knows modern Hebrew often cannot really easily read the Hebrew Bible. They are “that” different. Because of these things and several others, there is a good bit of “acceptable” linguistic variation. Biblical Hebrew has been hard to track for many reasons.

Mark Ward sheds some light into this, “In New Testament times, the disciples were noted as Galileans, probably indeed because of their accents. What was the “right” way back then to pronounce Kiriath Jearim? And was it FIL-uh-steen or fuh-LISS-teen—or something else entirely? Who can know? I’m not saying we can’t know anything about ancient pronunciation of Hebrew and Greek words; I’m saying it cannot serve as the standard for how you pronounce names in the Bible today. Take that impossible pressure off of you.”

We simply “do not know” and because of this, some scholars have gone to great lengths to try to show why one pronunciation or another may be better, but we are so far removed and there are so many complications to this argument that instead of the scholarly community getting particular about all the various possible pronunciations, for the most part, there is a loose grace that comes with the ground. In Hebrew thought, there is never really an absolute “correct” way of seeing something anyway. The ONLY correct “view” is God’s view, and no one has those exact eyes.

So now, you will better understand how TOV specifically gets interesting.

Most people reading this know that Tov is the Biblical Hebrew word that describes God’s handiwork as “good” [tov]. The Hebrew word tov would best be translated as the word “functional” in terms of God’s order (algorithm may be a better modern word to describe what God does here in regard to devotion) in contrast to this word is the Hebrew word “ra”. These two words, tov and ra are used for the tree of the knowledge of “good” and “evil”. While “ra” is often translated as evil it is best translated as “dysfunctional” or “chaotic”. In the Bible we see narratives such as good-evil, tov-ra, order-disorder, function-disfunction, peace-chaos and so on and so forth, and they all describe the contrast of everything that becomes rival to the ways of the Lord.

Tov becomes a one word Idiom to describe all things as intended by God with the idea of a journey to being what you were fully designed to be from the eyes of God both in a sense of your person and the community that represents God.

In Ancient or Paleo Hebrew each character makes a picture that has a loose description of its intention. The above from “strongs” will help you understand this ancient Hebraic idea.

You might notice if you look up the word “good” that different sources or commentators handle meanings and even the pronunciation of the word slightly differently. This just goes back to the idea above that we really do not know what the original word exactly sounded like and many different scholars have suggested differences of opinion and research.

Transliteration takes the letters from one language (in this case, Hebrew) and puts them into another while trying to preserve pronunciation as best as possible. This presents challenges when languages like Hebrew have different sounds than English and have changed immensely over time. For example, one of the sounds in Hebrew that’s hard to carry over in English is the kh sound. It appears in words like chesed (steadfast love, lovingkindness) and sounds like phlegm coming out the back of the throat.

You may see the word TOV written by some commentators as “tobe” where as others may suggest “towb” or somethings different. Sometimes this is a variation in vocabulary and tense but most often it isn’t. In Hebrew the V, W, and B English sounds are very close.

____________________

HOW TO PRONOUNCE TOV: So specifically, when we pronounce TOV, scholars can agree on a few things; in Hebrew you emphasize a strong syllable, and in this word, it is at the beginning. T and O are strong and for the most part are pronounced like “TOE” in English. (However, this is complicated because in modern Hebrew this O often can take on an “A” sound. You might be familiar with this when people say, Mozel TAV with a long A sound rather than Mozel TOV with a short O sound.) Then when you get to the end of the word TOV (particularly in Biblical Hebrew), the emphasis almost fades to nothing. You end with a nearly slurred WVB sound in English. Therefore, TOwvb may be the closest thing (transliteration) you would understand in English (but don’t give to much emphasis to any of the “w” “v” or “b” sound, they should softly fade together.) It comes off as a strong “Toe” with a fading wvb sound. All that said, TAV, TOWB, TOBE, TOVE, TOV and likely other ways of saying it, are all “acceptable” especially when spoken in English! As I alluded to above, only God knows.

____________________

Dr. Will Ryan