Tag Archives: biblical

A Theological Reading of the Carlson–Huckabee Exchange—and Why It Does Not Yield a Christian Mandate for Unconditional Support of Modern Israel

Posted by expedition44 on

Introduction

I have never cared much for politics—or, frankly, for either of the personalities involved in the Tucker Carlson–Mike Huckabee exchange. But I am interested in what their conversation exposes at a deeper level: the ease with which modern political arguments recruit Scripture, and the interpretive assumptions that often go unexamined when “the Bible says…” becomes a stand-in for careful exegesis.

In the exchange, Huckabee spoke as though Genesis 15:18 functions as a present-tense title deed—stretching from “the river of Egypt” to “the Euphrates”—while Carlson challenged the leap from an ancient covenant text to modern entitlement: if that’s the standard, why are borders negotiable, who counts as a rightful heir, and how does any of this become a binding obligation for Christians today? Beneath the soundbites is a question that actually matters: are we reading the biblical text on its own terms, in its Ancient Near Eastern and canonical context, or are we using it to baptize conclusions we already prefer?

This article takes Carlson’s line of questioning as an opportunity for theological and exegetical clarity rather than partisan reaction. My aim is not a political manifesto, but a canonical inquiry into what “Israel” means in the Bible’s own grammar—and what changes when Israel’s story reaches its climax in Jesus the Messiah. I will argue that modern Israel is not identical to covenant Israel in the sense that governs Christian obligation; that land-promise texts cannot be severed from Torah’s covenantal sanctions and the prophets’ ethical indictments; and that the New Testament’s Christological redefinition of the people of God relocates covenant identity from ethnicity and territory to union with Christ. On that basis, Christians should resist treating unconditional support for the modern State of Israel as a biblical mandate, while still rejecting antisemitism, refusing the dehumanization of Palestinians, and pursuing a kingdom ethic of truth, justice, and peacemaking for all image-bearers in the land.

1. The presenting controversy: a text, a nation-state, and the temptation to baptize policy

In his filmed exchange with U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee, Tucker Carlson pressed a question that many American Christians have often assumed rather than exegeted: when Genesis describes land promised to Abram’s descendants “from the river of Egypt…to the great river, the Euphrates,” what exactly is being claimed—and how (if at all) does that claim translate into modern geopolitical obligations? In the interview transcript, Carlson repeatedly returns to the logic of appeal: if “God gave this land to this people,” then what land, and which people, and on what principled basis should modern states underwrite that claim?

The exchange became headline news precisely because the “Bible as real-estate deed” framing is not merely an internal church dispute; it can be invoked to justify maximalist territorial imagination. Associated Press reported that Huckabee responded to Carlson’s “Nile to Euphrates” framing with, “It would be fine if they took it all,” even while adding that Israel was not currently seeking that expansion. This is exactly the kind of moment where Christian theological speech must slow down: not to evade political realities, but to avoid treating Scripture as a rhetorical accelerant.

What follows is an academic-style theological argument—biblically grounded, historically attentive, and hermeneutically explicit—contending that (1) modern Israel is not “biblical Israel” in the covenantal sense that matters for Christian identity and obligation, and (2) the New Testament does not authorize a blanket Christian duty to support the modern nation-state of Israel as a theological absolute, even while (3) Christians remain morally bound to oppose antisemitism, to pursue justice and mercy for all image-bearers in the land (Jewish and Palestinian alike), and to pray for peace.

2. Method: what “biblical Israel” means (and what it does not mean)

A responsible theological reading begins by distinguishing at least four “Israels,” which are too often collapsed:

  1. Israel as an ethnos (a people group with genealogical continuity).
  2. Israel as a covenant polity constituted at Sinai (and held accountable to Torah).
  3. Israel as a landed theocratic project under Yahweh’s kingship (and later monarchic compromise).
  4. Israel as an eschatological people reconstituted in and around the Messiah in the New Covenant.

Much popular Christian Zionism treats #1 and #2 as if they are stable across redemptive history and then maps them directly onto #3 in modern political form. But the Bible itself complicates every step of that move.

Chosen” in the Hebrew Bible is not primarily a synonym for “saved” but a vocation—a commissioned role “to be a light to the nations.” That vocational election is real. Yet vocation can be resisted, judged, exiled, and reconfigured within God’s larger redemptive purpose (a theme threaded through the prophets and then re-read christologically in the New Testament).

In short: the Bible itself does not permit a simplistic, trans-historical equivalence between “Israel” in Genesis, “Israel” in Deuteronomy, “Israel” in Second Temple politics, and “Israel” as a twentieth-century nation-state. That does not mean Jewish continuity is unreal. It means that covenant categories are not identical to modern nation-state categories—and Christian ethics cannot pretend they are.

3. The Abrahamic texts in their Ancient Near Eastern texture: promise, sign, and the grammar of gift

3.1 Genesis 12:1–3 is not a blank-check for foreign policy

The most common “Christian pro-Israel” proof-text in the American imagination is Genesis 12:3 (“I will bless those who bless you…”). But three exegetical observations matter.

First, the “you” addressed is Abram, not “Israel” as a later national polity. Second, the promise culminates in a universal horizon: “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Third, the New Testament repeatedly reads Abraham’s promise Christologically—not as an everlasting political entitlement but as a redemptive trajectory that reaches its telos in the Messiah and then spills outward to the nations. The “seed” is ultimately Christ and that union “in Christ” becomes the decisive identity marker.

Even many evangelical defenses of “bless Israel” concede the text is not reducible to modern state patronage.

3.2 Genesis 15:18 and the “Nile to Euphrates” claim: what is being promised?

Carlson’s pressure point is Genesis 15: if the land boundary is maximal, why are modern borders “shrunk,” and if the right is covenantal, why not identify rightful heirs by lineage or conversion status? Whatever one thinks of Carlson’s rhetoric, his question exposes a weakness in the “Bible as title deed” argument: it often wants the authority of literalism without the cost of literalism.

But the biblical narrative itself supplies the missing complexity.

  1. Genesis 15 is divine promise framed by covenant ritual. The “cutting” scene belongs to a broader Ancient Near Eastern world of covenant-making and self-maledictory symbolism (the “may it be to me as to these pieces” logic). The point is not that Abram receives a modern cartographic deed; it is that Yahweh binds himself to a promissory path that will unfold through judgment, deliverance, and covenant schooling.
  2. The Pentateuch itself embeds conditionality alongside gift. Deuteronomy’s covenant structure makes clear that land “rest” and land “retention” are tethered to fidelity; exile is not a surprise glitch but a stipulated covenant outcome (Deut 28–30). The gift is real; the possession is morally charged.
  3. The boundary language functions typologically and theologically. “From Wadi Egypt to the Euphrates” becomes a way of expressing fullness and security under Yahweh’s reign—yet the historical narratives show fluctuating control, partial possession, and continual threat. Even in the so-called “golden age,” the biblical writers do not present Israel as a simple imperial machine but as a morally accountable people whose kings can be indicted by prophetic speech.

This is why proof-texting Genesis 15 to justify “it would be fine if they took it all” is not exegesis; it is ideological ventriloquism.

4. “Fulfilled” land, fractured obedience: Joshua, Kings, and the prophets against naïve maximalism

A major interpretive fault-line is whether the land promise is (a) already fulfilled in Israel’s early history and then refigured in Christ, or (b) postponed into a future political restoration.

Those who argue (a) often appeal to texts like Joshua 21:43–45 (“the LORD gave to Israel all the land…not one word…failed”), while dispensational writers contest that conclusion by insisting the promise requires fuller geographical realization. The point here is not to adjudicate every sub-debate, but to notice what the canonical shape presses on us:

  • The Deuteronomistic history (Joshua–Kings) depicts land as covenant theater: blessing and curse play out in real time; kings can lose the plot; exile arrives as covenant consequence.
  • The prophets do not treat land as an unconditional permanent possession immune to ethics. They treat it as a stage upon which injustice can bring expulsion (cf. Amos; Jeremiah; Ezekiel).

So even if one holds that future restoration themes remain (a debated question), the prophetic corpus blocks the move from “promise” to “unconditional endorsement of any state behavior.” The Bible does not give Israel a moral “get out of judgment free” card; it gives Israel more accountability.

5. The New Testament’s reconfiguration: Jesus as faithful Israel, and the people defined “in him”

The New Testament does not merely add Jesus onto Israel’s story; it claims that Jesus fulfills Israel’s vocation and embodies Israel’s identity as the faithful covenant keeper. Matthew’s application of Hosea (“out of Egypt I called my son”) to Jesus and Paul’s emphasis that the inheritance is shared only “in Christ.”

That is not “replacement theology” in the crude sense of “God discards Jews.” It is a christological claim about where covenant identity is now located: in the Messiah and those united to him by faith.

Several New Testament moves matter for the present debate:

  1. The redefinition of kinship and peoplehood. Jesus relativizes bloodline as the defining marker of belonging (e.g., “Who are my mother and my brothers?”). Paul can say “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom 9:6), and he can describe Gentiles being “grafted in” to the covenantal olive tree (Rom 11). The people of God become a multi-ethnic body whose unity is cruciform rather than nationalistic.
  2. The relocation of “promised land” hope into eschatological new creation. The Expedition44 “Israel & the Jesus Kingdom” essay argues that the New Covenant’s “promised land” is fundamentally eschatological—recreated heavens and earth—rather than a mandate for a modern territorial project, and that Christian allegiance is primarily to the kingdom of Jesus.
  3. The ethic of the kingdom as interpretive control. The Sermon on the Mount is not an optional “private spirituality” track; it is the Messiah’s charter for his people. If one tries to use Scripture to underwrite policies that produce indiscriminate harm or permanent domination, that reading must be confronted by the Messiah’s own ethic.

This is the theological center of gravity: Christian Scripture culminates not in land expansion but in a crucified and risen Messiah who forms a trans-national people and teaches them to love enemies.

6. Why many Christians do argue for continuing “biblical support” of modern Israel—and what to do with those arguments

To be fair and academically responsible, we should state the strongest versions of the Christian pro-Israel claims.

6.1 Argument from covenant permanence (“forever” language)

Many argue that because covenants are described as “everlasting,” the land promise must remain politically operative. Dispensational systems tend to separate “Israel” and “Church” as distinct peoples with distinct destinies, thereby preserving a future national role for ethnic Israel.

Response: “Forever” in covenant idiom must be read within canonical and covenantal context: the same covenant documents specify exile as consequence; prophetic judgments speak of being “not my people” in covenant rupture (Hos 1:9–11). A dispensational attempt to preserve unconditionality by sidelining covenant sanctions does violence to the Torah’s own logic. (Even writers sympathetic to Israel-church distinction acknowledge Hosea’s “not my people” language as covenantal crisis.)

6.2 Argument from Genesis 12:3 (“bless those who bless you”)

Many popular teachers treat this as a timeless mechanism: bless modern Israel materially/militarily and you will be blessed.

Response: The Abrahamic promise is read by the New Testament as culminating in Christ and opening to the nations; “blessing” cannot be reduced to state patronage. Even within evangelical discussions, careful treatments note that Genesis 12 is addressed to Abram and that “Israel” is not in view as a modern polity.

6.3 Argument from prophecy fulfillment (1948 as “sign”)

Some interpret the modern state’s founding (1948) as prophetic fulfillment and therefore as a theological anchor for Christian support.

Response: Even if one grants “providential significance,” providence is not identical to covenant mandate. Moreover, the New Testament regularly treats “sign” language as Christ-centered; political events cannot simply be baptized as eschatological necessity without robust textual argument. Steve Gregg’s approach—evaluate the modern state biblically and be wary of dispensational narratives—pushes against the “1948 = automatic theology” reflex.

6.4 Argument from “apostolic concern for Israel” (Rom 9–11)

Some argue Paul’s anguish and hope for Israel implies a continuing special status requiring Christian political alignment.

Response: Paul’s concern is evangelistic and doxological, not a directive for modern foreign policy. Romans 9–11 is about God’s fidelity and the mystery of unbelief and mercy—not a command to underwrite a state.

7. Why unconditional Christian support for modern Israel is not biblically required (and is often theologically confused)

Pulling the threads together, there are several main biblical reasons a Christian is not obligated—as a matter of theological necessity—to support the modern state of Israel “in general” or “no matter what.”

7.1 Category error: covenant people ≠ modern nation-state

“The modern nation-state of Israel is not the covenant people of the Bible,” because covenant membership is now defined by faith in the Messiah rather than ethnicity or passport status.

That doesn’t settle every question about Jewish identity or God’s providence, but it does block the simplistic move: “Bible says Israel → therefore Christians must support modern Israel.”

7.2 Canonical ethic: God’s promises never authorize injustice

The Hebrew Bible constantly holds Israel accountable for injustice; the prophets do not hesitate to indict Israel more severely because of her calling. Therefore it is hermeneutically incoherent to say, “because of promise, Israel gets unconditional endorsement.” Promise does not erase prophetic ethics; it intensifies them.

7.3 Christological control: the telos is Messiah and new creation, not territorial maximalism

Even within your own framework, the “promised land” is ultimately eschatological, and the kingdom’s geography is the renewed creation—not a modern territorial ideology.

7.4 Political theology: the New Covenant does not create sacral nation-states

The church is not a nation-state; it is a trans-national body. When Christians treat any state as if it carries covenant holiness, they risk reintroducing a form of sacral nationalism the New Testament consistently relativizes.

7.5 Moral realism: “Israel’s policies” cannot be the basis for blanket theology (and the abortion claim is not decisive)

To be totally transparent, some Christians support reasons to not support Israel such as “they support abortion” and “they largely aren’t Christians.” Even if those claims were uniformly true (they are more complex than social media summaries), they still wouldn’t function as the primary argument, because Christian theology does not grant blanket moral endorsement to any state based on religious purity tests. Still, it is fair to note that Israel’s legal framework includes state-regulated access to abortion through termination committees. The deeper point, though, is this: Christian foreign policy ethics should be grounded in justice, the protection of the vulnerable, truthful speech, and peacemaking—rather than a mythic covenant entitlement narrative.

8. Returning to Carlson’s central challenge: “blood,” conversion, and the instability of ethno-theological politics

Carlson’s sharpest theological question in the interview is not about ancient boundaries but about the moral logic of an ethnic land-claim. He presses: if the right is covenantal and genealogical, why not genetic testing? How does conversion (to Judaism or to Christianity) affect right of return? Huckabee appears to oscillate between “biblical/ethnic/historical” claims and pragmatic border talk, but Carlson’s critique lands: a nation-state founded on ethnic criteria invites moral confusion when theologized as divine decree.

From a New Testament perspective, this critique is theologically fruitful: the Messiah’s people are not determined by DNA but by covenantal faithfulness expressed as allegiance to Jesus. “In Christ” is the dominant boundary marker and that blessing is tied to honoring the Messiah rather than underwriting national projects.

Thus, ironically, Carlson’s “America First” skepticism can function as a negative aid to Christian exegesis: it exposes how quickly Christians can drift into a quasi-biblical ethno-politics that the apostolic writings resist.

9. Constructive conclusion: what Christians can say (and do) without making Scripture a weapon

  1. Reject antisemitism categorically. Jewish people are not “the problem,” and Christian history contains grievous sins against Jews.
  2. Refuse to sacralize any state. No modern nation bears covenant holiness.
  3. Read land, people, and promise through the Messiah. If Jesus is the faithful Israelite, then the story’s center is him, and the people are those “in him.”
  4. Seek justice and peace for all who dwell in the land. Christian ethics does not permit indifference toward Palestinian suffering or Jewish fear; both must be taken with full seriousness.
  5. Advocate principled, conditional political reasoning. If one supports Israel politically, it should be on the same moral grounds one uses for any state: proportionality, protection of noncombatants, truthful diplomacy, restraint, and the pursuit of genuine peace—not “because Genesis.” If one withholds support, it should likewise be principled, not tribal.

The primary allegiance of the Christ-follower is to the Jesus Kingdom, and the church must resist being “yoked” to worldly power projects that distort the kingdom’s witness.

Conclusion

The Carlson–Huckabee exchange ultimately exposes not a political dilemma, but a hermeneutical one. When the biblical text is read within its Ancient Near Eastern covenant context and through the New Testament’s Christological fulfillment, it becomes clear that Scripture does not grant modern nation-states a standing theological entitlement. The covenant promises to Israel find their telos in the Messiah, and the people of God are now defined by union with Him rather than by ethnicity, geography, or political sovereignty.

For that reason, Christians are not biblically obligated to offer unconditional support to the modern State of Israel as if such support were a covenantal requirement. Our allegiance is not to any geopolitical entity but to Jesus Christ, the true Israel and King of the kingdom that transcends every border. From that allegiance flows a consistent ethic: we reject antisemitism, we refuse to dehumanize Palestinians, and we pursue justice, truth, and peace for all who dwell in the land.

In the end, the question is not whether Christians will take a political side, but whether we will read Scripture faithfully and embody the kingdom it proclaims.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Covenant, Land, and Conditionality

How should the land promises in Genesis (e.g., Gen 12; 15; 17) be interpreted in light of the covenantal conditions articulated in Deuteronomy 28–30 and the prophetic indictments that led to exile?

  • In what sense are the promises “everlasting,” and in what sense are they historically administered under covenant fidelity?
  • Does the canonical shape of the Old Testament itself invite a non-literal or typological expansion of the land promise?

2. The Reconfiguration of Israel in the New Testament

To what extent do New Testament texts (e.g., Rom 9–11; Gal 3; Eph 2; 1 Pet 2:9–10) redefine the identity of Israel around Christ and the Church?

  • Do these passages suggest continuity, replacement, fulfillment, or expansion?
  • How should one evaluate the claim that “not all Israel is Israel” (Rom 9:6) in relation to modern ethnic or national identity?

3. Hermeneutics and Political Theology

What hermeneutical principles should govern the use of biblical texts in modern geopolitical discussions, such as those raised in the Carlson–Huckabee exchange?

  • Is it legitimate to apply ANE covenant language directly to contemporary nation-states?
  • What criteria distinguish faithful theological application from ideological proof-texting?

4. Christological Fulfillment and the Kingdom of God

How does the New Testament presentation of Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s vocation (e.g., Matt 2; John 15; Heb 11) reshape the theological significance of land, peoplehood, and covenant identity?

  • In what sense is the “promised land” reinterpreted as new creation (Matt 5:5; Rom 4:13)?
  • What implications does this have for Christian allegiance and identity in a global, multi-ethnic Church?

5. Ethics, Justice, and Christian Responsibility Today

If Christians are not biblically mandated to support the modern State of Israel unconditionally, what ethical framework should guide their posture toward Israel, Palestine, and the broader Middle East?

  • How should biblical themes of justice, mercy, and reconciliation (e.g., Mic 6:8; Matt 5–7; 2 Cor 5:18–20) inform Christian political engagement?
  • What does it look like to reject both antisemitism and anti-Palestinian dehumanization while maintaining fidelity to the gospel?

For additional consideration on this Subject:
https://expedition44.com/2025/10/16/is-israel-still-gods-chosen-people/
https://expedition44.com/2023/10/29/israel-the-jesus-kingdom/

Footnotes (serving more as a Bibliography)

Note: Because this is formatted for a blog post rather than a print journal, some citations are consolidated (multiple works per note) to keep the apparatus readable despite the 140 citations.

  1. “Mike Huckabee’s Interview @ Tucker Carlson Show (Transcript),” The Singju Post, February 20, 2026.
  2. Sam Mednick and Samy Magdy, “US ambassador causes uproar by claiming Israel has a right to much of the Middle East,” Associated Press, February 21, 2026.
  3. Expedition44, “Is Israel Still God’s Chosen people?” October 16, 2025.
  4. Expedition44, “Israel & the Jesus Kingdom,” October 29, 2023.
  5. Steve Gregg, “The Modern State of Israel” (lecture summary), OpenTheo.
  6. Steve Gregg, “What Are We to Make of Israel?” (series index/summary), OpenTheo.
  7. The Narrow Path, “Topical Lectures: Israel—What Are We to Make of Israel (12 Lectures).”
  8. Aaron Sobczak, “No, Christians shouldn’t give unconditional support to Israel,” Libertarian Christian Institute, January 27, 2025.
  9. “Rethinking Support for Israel: A Biblical Approach Beyond Politics,” Bible Mysteries Podcast (blog), n.d.
  10. Brian Collins, “Kevin T. Bauder, ‘Israel and the Church: Is There Really a Difference,’ in Dispensationalism Revisited,” Exegesis and Theology, June 14, 2024.
  11. Ministry of Health (Israel), “Induced Abortion,” government information page.
  12. State of Israel, gov.il, “Apply to Terminate a Pregnancy (Induced Abortion).”
  13. One for Israel, “What Does it Mean to Bless Israel According to Genesis 12…,” July 17, 2024.
  14. “At the roots of evangelical Christians’ support for Israel,” Le Monde, April 11, 2024.
  15. “Evangelicals’ support for Israel is dropping…,” Washington Post, January 3, 2026.
  16. Genesis 12:1–3; 15:18–21; Exodus 19:5–6; Deuteronomy 7:6; Isaiah 49:6.
  17. Deuteronomy 28–30; Leviticus 26.
  18. Joshua 21:43–45; 1 Kings 4:21 (cf. boundary rhetoric).
  19. Amos 1–2; 5; Micah 6; Isaiah 1; Jeremiah 7; Ezekiel 16; Hosea 1–3.
  20. Matthew 2:15; Hosea 11:1 (as reused in Matthew).
  21. Galatians 3:16, 28–29; Romans 2:28–29; Romans 4; Romans 9:6; Romans 11.
  22. Matthew 5–7; Luke 6:27–36.
  23. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), esp. on Israel and Messiah.
  24. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), on Israel’s story reread in Jesus.
  25. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).
  26. John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 3 vols. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003–2009).
  27. Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006).
  28. Walter Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002).
  29. Scott W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), on covenant and familial identity.
  30. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), on Deuteronomic covenant logic.
  31. George E. Mendenhall and Gary A. Herion, “Covenant,” in ABD 1:1179–1202.
  32. Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), on ANE treaty form and biblical covenants.
  33. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), on historical framing.
  34. Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), on Israel’s early religion.
  35. John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), on Second Temple hopes.
  36. E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE–66 CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992).
  37. Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2014).
  38. Josephus, Jewish War (esp. on 66–70 CE), in LCL editions.
  39. Mishnah Avot; Sanhedrin (for later identity discourse; used cautiously for NT-era claims).
  40. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), on Matthean Israel typology.
  41. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 2nd ed. (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), on Romans 9–11.
  42. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), on “in Christ” identity.
  43. Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), on cruciform politics.
  44. Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983).
  45. John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).
  46. Oliver O’Donovan, The Desire of the Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), on political theology.
  47. Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), on reconciliation.
  48. Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response (New York: HarperOne, 2011), on public theology and neighbor-love.
  49. Craig Keener, Romans (NCCS; Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009), on Romans 9–11 pastoral stakes.
  50. Beverly Roberts Gaventa, When in Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), on reading Romans as gospel.
  51. J. Louis Martyn, Galatians (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1997), on Abraham, promise, and “seed.”
  52. Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), on pistis and covenant faithfulness.
  53. Matthew Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), on identity markers.
  54. Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), on Paul’s Israel discourse.
  55. Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004).
  56. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), background.
  57. Eyal Regev, The Temple in Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), temple and identity.
  58. Dale C. Allison Jr., Constructing Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), on Jesus and Israel’s story.
  59. Richard Bauckham, Bible and Mission (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), on universal blessing trajectory.
  60. John Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), on grace and identity.
  61. Markus Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000).
  62. Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).
  63. David M. Carr, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), on Pentateuchal formation.
  64. David L. Petersen, The Prophetic Literature (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002).
  65. Walter Kaiser Jr., The Promise-Plan of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), for a promise-plan defense (used critically).
  66. Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998).
  67. Stephen B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), on canon and covenant.
  68. John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).
  69. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1987), on Genesis 12 and 15.
  70. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).
  71. J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy (AOTC; Leicester: Apollos, 2002), on blessings/curses and land.
  72. Patrick D. Miller, Deuteronomy (IBC; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990).
  73. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1991).
  74. Richard D. Nelson, Joshua (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997).
  75. Robert P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), on monarchy tensions.
  76. Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007).
  77. John Barton, Oracles of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), prophets and ethics.
  78. Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper, 1962), prophetic indictment as covenant lawsuit.
  79. Mark J. Boda, Return to Me (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), on repentance and restoration.
  80. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–1998), on land and holiness.
  81. Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1980), on “not my people.”
  82. Jörg Jeremias, The Book of Amos (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998).
  83. James Luther Mays, Micah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1976).
  84. Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
  85. Rikk E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), on new exodus motif.
  86. Scot McKnight, Kingdom Conspiracy (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2014), on kingdom vs politicization.
  87. Peter J. Leithart, The Kingdom and the Power (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1993), for a contrasting political theology.
  88. John Stott, The Message of Romans (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994), on Romans 9–11 pastoral nuance.
  89. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), on “seed.”
  90. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), on Israel’s story and kingdom.
  91. Richard B. Hays, “Can the Gospels Teach Us How to Read the Old Testament?” in The Conversion of the Imagination (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
  92. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), on interpretive ethics.
  93. Stephen E. Fowl, Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009).
  94. John Webster, Holy Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
  95. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), canonical reading.
  96. Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), warning against abstraction.
  97. Bart D. Ehrman, “Exegesis: Simple Definition, Examples, and Mistakes to Avoid,” on method (as a general hermeneutics primer).
  98. The Think Institute, “Does the Bible Require Christians to Support Modern Israel?” June 22, 2025 (popular-level but useful framing).
  99. Christianity StackExchange, “How do non-dispensationalists interpret Genesis 12:3?” (crowd-sourced; used only to illustrate argument typology).
  100. Le Monde, “At the roots…” (historical on dispensationalism and Christian Zionism).
  101. Genesis 17; Exodus 32–34; Numbers 14; Deuteronomy 9–10 (covenant rupture and renewal patterns).
  102. Psalm 2; Psalm 72; Psalm 110 (messianic kingship reframing).
  103. Isaiah 2; Isaiah 11; Isaiah 19 (nations and eschatological horizon).
  104. Zechariah 9–14 (contested texts; hermeneutical caution).
  105. Luke 24:25–27, 44–49 (Christological reading authorization).
  106. Ephesians 2:11–22 (one new humanity).
  107. 1 Peter 2:9–10 (Israel language applied to the church).
  108. Hebrews 11:8–16 (Abraham seeking a better country).
  109. Revelation 5; 7; 21–22 (multi-ethnic people and new creation geography).
  110. Munther Isaac, The Other Side of the Wall (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2020), for Palestinian Christian witness (for balance).
  111. Gary M. Burge, Jesus and the Land (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), on land in NT.
  112. O. Palmer Robertson, The Israel of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2000), on covenant peoplehood.
  113. Daniel Juster and Peter Hocken, The Messianic Jewish Movement (London: Continuum, 2004), for Messianic Jewish perspectives (used cautiously).
  114. Mark Kinzer, Postmissionary Messianic Judaism (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005), on Jewish identity within Messiah faith.
  115. Michael Wyschogrod, The Body of Faith (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983), Jewish theological angle (for understanding terms).
  116. Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), covenant and election in Jewish reading.
  117. Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), typology and sacrifice trajectories.
  118. Beverly Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, eds., Seeking the Identity of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), on christological Israel reading.
  119. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), new creation as telos.
  120. Oliver Davies, Paul D. Janz, and Clemente Cervantes, eds., Transforming Grace (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2010), on grace and politics.
  121. Augustine, City of God (cited only for political theology genealogy; not used as a controlling authority).
  122. Oliver O’Donovan, The Ways of Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), moral reasoning in public.
  123. Miroslav Volf, Public Faith (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), on non-tribal public theology.
  124. John Inazu, Confident Pluralism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016), on civic posture.
  125. Nicholas Wolterstorff, Justice: Rights and Wrongs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), justice framework.
  126. Exodus 23:9; Leviticus 19:33–34 (ethics toward the stranger/sojourner).
  127. Zechariah 7:9–10 (justice and mercy).
  128. Matthew 25:31–46 (care for the vulnerable).
  129. Romans 12:9–21 (enemy-love and non-retaliation).
  130. 2 Corinthians 5:14–21 (ministry of reconciliation).
  131. Luke 19:41–44 (Jesus weeping over Jerusalem; judgment and lament).
  132. Acts 15 (Gentile inclusion without Torah boundary markers).
  133. Galatians 6:16 (“Israel of God”—contested; requires careful handling).
  134. Matthew 21:33–46 (vineyard parable; covenant accountability).
  135. John 18:36 (kingdom “not from this world”).
  136. Philippians 3:20 (citizenship in heaven).
  137. Hebrews 13:14 (seeking the city to come).
  138. Revelation 21:24–26 (nations in the eschaton—purified, not deified).
  139. AP News report on borders shifting and post-1967 realities (for historical frame only).
  140. Expedition44 on “chosen = vocation,” and “true Israel = Jesus” as interpretive thesis.

Archaeology and the Bible: Five Discoveries that Illuminate the Text

Posted by expedition44 on

Introduction

Biblical archaeology does not “prove” the theological claims of Scripture in a strict philosophical sense; however, it does provide a material context that can either corroborate or challenge the historical plausibility of the biblical narrative. Over the past century and a half, a series of major archaeological discoveries have significantly strengthened confidence in the Bible’s historical setting, literary transmission, and cultural coherence. This article surveys five of the most widely discussed discoveries and explores their implications for textual apprehension—that is, how readers understand, interpret, and situate the biblical text in its historical world.

1. The Tel Dan Stele and the “House of David”

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/JRSLM_300116_Tel_Dan_Stele_01.jpg
https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-3/IpJ9RNhBnSbg3Sx_2CjBi-gwnX1TTwbFhbFhwIPiQepUDS-c0NeEzEDINgYZcTu5D8MWnNB3j87QKVUUXFXN6vlgRcdNtOPrZ-F063hk4Aw?purpose=fullsize&v=1

Discovered in 1993–1994 at Tel Dan in northern Israel, the Tel Dan Stele is an Aramaic inscription dating to the 9th century BCE. It contains the phrase bytdwd (“House of David”), which most scholars interpret as a dynastic reference to King David.

Significance

Prior to this discovery, some minimalist scholars argued that David was a legendary or composite figure. The Tel Dan Stele provides the earliest extra-biblical reference to David’s royal line, lending historical credibility to the Davidic monarchy described in 1–2 Samuel and Kings.

Implications for Textual Apprehension

The stele reinforces that the biblical authors were not inventing a fictional dynastic origin, but were engaging a known political reality. This strengthens the plausibility of the historical framework within which the theological claims of covenant (2 Samuel 7) are embedded.

2. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Stability of the Hebrew Text

https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-3/IWljAS5B5N9kiNtTFD8EG9t2gfXHTKVklK7t17LB6U-zeJVyXhJwNS3zEM9atHpjdlno-QeTK7xA7xlriCmy9jHL3pzlvSYJOeWhD94zh_w?purpose=fullsize&v=1
https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-3/FyM0nwfHzes9AWtTrz1Ah8dP_oG4CNfNwQCbQckMzlISuDC441wmKCYNtw6bjFPJAl3alDU03YneLa73ROCWtW10pzpyOVZo8kOerHI1XIk?purpose=fullsize&v=1
https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-3/HLjRLMVZwJW7YQU77YGLRhHnLl4hGGyEZHvv8rHbXtK2bLXpwHT0Bz3OoqP82-5RbDoU5R8lQ_Y49doDpsRz6DgNaWtgbA9dMwFWid6v6DY?purpose=fullsize&v=1

Discovered between 1947 and 1956 near Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls include manuscripts of nearly every book of the Hebrew Bible, some dating as early as the 3rd century BCE.

Significance

Comparison between the Great Isaiah Scroll and later Masoretic manuscripts (c. 10th century CE) shows remarkable textual stability across nearly a millennium of transmission.

Implications for Textual Apprehension

The scrolls dramatically reinforce the reliability of the textual tradition behind modern Old Testament translations. They also demonstrate that the textual communities of Second Temple Judaism transmitted Scripture with extraordinary care, supporting the assumption that the biblical text used in theological argumentation today is substantially consistent with ancient forms.

3. The Pilate Stone and Roman Governance in Judea

https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-3/jpPqgSiZsslDk5GsJXcrKAIBv1oiY2vP5tTKdYMnfquyCUP9TWlngHRyGllhT0a_soLZ93JWAi2Mxdd3JqMBMqbM7Yh2xDlW_3mioVSLCuo?purpose=fullsize&v=1
https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-3/tWg654tQU17p7H1ekshfHkpeib9EHuIXwv46dSJEJLSjoPwyE8hwv-sH2cEATzUfAxxz20N1Zk4GHAnXv4lJSob1f1aqc51mhsTuZB8mByk?purpose=fullsize&v=1
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Pontius_Pilate_Inscription.JPG/250px-Pontius_Pilate_Inscription.JPG

In 1961, excavations at Caesarea Maritima uncovered a limestone block bearing a Latin inscription that includes the name Pontius Pilatus, the Roman prefect of Judea referenced in the Gospels.

Significance

The inscription confirms the historical existence and title of Pontius Pilate, validating the Gospel accounts (e.g., Matthew 27; John 19) within a known Roman administrative structure.

Implications for Textual Apprehension

The Gospels demonstrate familiarity with Roman provincial governance, titles, and political realities. The Pilate Stone situates the crucifixion narrative within a verifiable administrative context, underscoring that the passion accounts are anchored in real historical governance rather than later legendary development.

4. The Pool of Siloam and the Gospel of John

https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-3/y7L70A6VCcTtIkVAVYZaCTqDkBRXY7nyTMmhU_x2v9r5spx6uPsS13llS1SKgkKtKyGO16rt-xwQOSYrIuJzMdOxyWQ2J9fw7Y0ijyLv7UE?purpose=fullsize&v=1
https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-3/RmFrQEc1D_COBmj0skKDT7hScC3lVhJi_Pm5nnvT_ijYLkxoXMgkzrF4pLlaR6-wvotT3IS32Sk8I8YAbA2B5ss1Mo9ouzflyWKmZKPd_u4?purpose=fullsize&v=1
https://armstronginstitute.org/files/W1siZiIsIjIwMjIvMDgvMTAvN21mdnFpeGM3d19IZXpla2lhaF9zX1R1bm5lbC5qcGciXSxbInAiLCJ0aHVtYiIsIjEyMDB4PiJdLFsicCIsImVuY29kZSIsImpwZyIsIi1xdWFsaXR5IDgwIl1d/c7c322e76d5ea250/Hezekiah%27s%20Tunnel.jpg.jpg

In 2004, archaeologists uncovered the Second Temple–period Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, referenced in John 9 as the site where Jesus healed a blind man.

Significance

The discovery confirmed the pool’s size, location, and function as a major ritual immersion site in first-century Jerusalem.

Implications for Textual Apprehension

The Gospel of John is sometimes accused of being theologically rich but historically imprecise. However, the accurate topographical detail regarding the Pool of Siloam strengthens confidence that the Johannine narrative reflects genuine knowledge of Jerusalem’s geography prior to its destruction in 70 CE.

5. The Hittite Archives and the Old Testament World

https://images.openai.com/static-rsc-3/7bZVX5Mx1-HcCh-rX030DdNJ3DFgTwfRH4gkU27Cu_4njLtQnpGmru1-l8DTxrGdtn8nOilMjRNErOMg6FwhY9mBTntca9dLgX_fIHvMTh0?purpose=fullsize&v=1
https://expedition44.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/1cd97-bogazkoy2barchive2b28129.webp
https://www.julianspriggs.co.uk/Photos/hittite_treaty.jpg

Nineteenth-century critics doubted the biblical references to the Hittites (e.g., Genesis 23; 2 Kings 7), considering them fictional. Excavations at Hattusa (modern Boğazköy, Turkey) uncovered a vast Hittite empire with extensive archives.

Significance

Thousands of cuneiform tablets revealed a sophisticated political culture, including covenant treaty structures strikingly similar to biblical covenant forms (e.g., Deuteronomy).

Implications for Textual Apprehension

The discovery reframes the Old Testament covenant texts as belonging to a recognizable Ancient Near Eastern literary genre. This supports readings of Deuteronomy and related texts as historically situated covenant documents rather than later theological inventions.

Conclusion

These five discoveries do not “prove” the theological truth claims of Scripture; however, they demonstrate that the Bible emerges from a historically grounded world that is increasingly accessible through archaeology. For biblical interpreters, this matters deeply. Theological claims in Scripture are not abstract philosophical propositions detached from history; they are embedded in real people, places, languages, and political structures. Archaeology, therefore, strengthens the plausibility of the biblical narrative and refines our interpretive lens, enabling a more historically responsible reading of the text.

Discussion Questions

  1. In what ways does archaeological corroboration strengthen (or fail to strengthen) theological confidence in Scripture?
  2. How should interpreters balance archaeological data with literary and theological analysis when reading biblical narratives?
  3. Does the Tel Dan Stele definitively prove the historical David, or does it simply make his existence more plausible? Why does this distinction matter?
  4. What does the textual stability demonstrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls imply for modern debates about biblical authority and inspiration?
  5. How do discoveries such as the Hittite treaties reshape our understanding of covenant language in Deuteronomy and the broader Old Testament?

Selected Bibliography

Archaeology and the Bible

  • Dever, William G. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
  • Kitchen, K. A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
  • Hoffmeier, James K. The Archaeology of the Bible. Oxford: Lion, 2019.
  • Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday, 1990.

Specific Discoveries

  • Biran, Avraham, and Joseph Naveh. “The Tel Dan Inscription.” Israel Exploration Journal 45 (1995): 1–18.
  • Cross, Frank Moore. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.
  • Taylor, Joan E. The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
  • Bond, Helen K. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  • Reich, Ronny, and Eli Shukron. “The Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem.” Biblical Archaeology Review 31.5 (2005): 16–23.
  • Beckman, Gary. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.

Textual Criticism and Transmission

  • Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.
  • Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

“Love Beyond Cards and Candy: A Biblical and Socio-Rhetorical Reflection on Valentine’s Day”

Posted by expedition44 on

Every February 14 many Christians and non-Christians alike pause to celebrate love—often through candy, flowers, heart-shaped cards, and candlelight dinners. But beneath the commercial veneer lies a rich tapestry of history, cultural adaptation, and theological meaning that invites careful reflection for the church—one rooted not simply in sentiment, but in Scripture and the long witness of Christian faith.

1. The Historical Palimpsest of Valentine’s Day

Some scholars would identify at least three such figures known in martyrologies, with one tradition holding that a Roman priest named Valentine in the third century defied an imperial edict against Christian marriage to marry couples in secret—a testament to his defense of Christian marriage and pastoral courage.

By the fifth and sixth centuries, February 14 was established in the liturgical calendar as the feast of St. Valentine, though the medieval church did not associate this date with romantic love until much later. In time, festivals of courtly love and poetic traditions such as Chaucer’s Parliament of Fowls would fold romantic symbolism into the date long after its ecclesiastical origins ended.

It is essential sociologically to recognize that Valentine’s Day—as celebrated today—is a layered cultural artifact: part hagiographic remembrance, part medieval romance, part commercialized modern ritual. None of these layers originate in biblical revelation, yet all reflect ways humans seek to articulate love within their cultural context.

2. Scripture and the Semantics of Love

Most people are aware that the Bible does not mention Valentine’s Day; nowhere is it regarded as a holy day per se. Its absence places the observance in the category of Christian freedom described in Romans 14:5–6, where Paul writes that believers may regard certain days differently, and whether one observes them or not, it should be “in honor of the Lord.”

What Scripture does offer is a rich, nuanced theology of love. In biblical Greek there are multiple terms for love—agapé (self-giving, covenantal love), philia (brotherly affection), eros (romantic desire, depicted especially in Song of Songs), and storge (familial love). While eros itself does not appear in the New Testament theological lexicon, the Song of Songs—a book of the Hebrew Bible—celebrates sensual and relational love within the covenant of marriage.

The apostle Paul’s famous discourse in 1 Corinthians 13 reframes love as a moral and spiritual virtue defined not by transient feeling but by patient covenantal commitment, self-giving service, and endurance. Jesus Himself states the core of the law: to love God with all one’s heart and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:30–31).

This emphasis locates the core of biblical discourse not in romantic expression alone, but in covenantal fidelity, sacrificial love, and the self-giving love revealed supremely in Christ’s death and resurrection.

3. Early Church and the Appropriation of Culture

From a socio-rhetorical perspective, the early church was adept at incarnating its message within existing cultural frameworks without compromising its core message. The apostle Paul became “all things to all people” to win some to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:22).

Christian appropriation of certain dates or customs has always been contested. The church’s decision to commemorate saints and martyrs on specific feast days was not intended to canonize secular customs, but to sanctify memory in ways that pointed beyond worldly spectacle to Christ’s kingship and the communion of saints.

In this light, Valentine’s Day can serve as a cultural locus for Christians to articulate biblical love — not simply by embracing its commercial trappings uncritically, nor by rejecting all contact with culture out of fear of syncretism, but by discerning how Christ’s love reshapes human practices. As Paul counsels, “Test everything; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

4. Theological Reframing: Love as Witness

Rather than delegating Valentine’s Day to either celebration or avoidance, Christians can use the occasion as an invitation to reflect on biblical love as witness—not only within marriage, but within the body of Christ and the broader world.

A socio-rhetorical reading invites us to see Valentine’s Day less as an externally mandated Christian feast and more as a rhetorical opportunity—a moment when society’s focus on love can be redirected toward the love that God enacts in Christ. Such love is measured not by roses and chocolates, but by the sacrificial gift of Christ and the mutual love of believers that testifies to His presence (John 13:35).

Conclusion: Love in Context

Valentine’s Day is not inherently Christian because it emerged from early church commemoration or medieval romantic tradition. Nor is it inherently pagan because of its layered history. It is imperatively a moment for Christians to practice discernment, to ask how the gospel reframes the season of love, and to embody sacrificial, covenantal love in ways that reflect God’s love for the world.

As we remember St. Valentine—a figure united by courage and fidelity to Christ—and reflect on the biblical narrative of love from Genesis to Revelation, may our practice of love be shaped by agapé above all else, rooted in Scripture and enacted in service.

Discussion Questions

  1. How does an awareness of the historical development of Valentine’s Day influence (or not) how we celebrate love as Christians?
  2. In what ways does the biblical concept of agapé challenge modern expressions of romantic love?
  3. How can Christians use cultural observances like Valentine’s Day as platforms for gospel witness without syncretizing their faith?
  4. What does Song of Songs teach us about the place of romantic love within God’s broader design for relationships?
  5. How might Paul’s teaching in Romans 14 apply to disagreements within the church over celebrating Valentine’s Day?

Bibliography

  • Armstrong Institute. “Valentine’s Day—in the Hebrew Bible?” (ArmstrongInstitute.org)
  • BibleInspire.com. “Valentine’s Day Biblical Meaning: What Christians Need to Know.”
  • “Valentine’s Day.” Wikipedia (overview of historical development).
  • Song of Songs. Wikipedia (literary and canonical context).

Marriage and Covenant Community – Conference Notes

Posted by expedition44 on

Covenant and Community: Embracing Christ‑Centered Humility, Servanthood, and Shepherding in Christian Marriage

1. Marriage as Covenant and Christ‑Like Identity

Christian marriage is fundamentally covenantal, reflecting the relationship between Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22‑33). In the Hebrew and Greek context, covenant implies lifelong commitment, mutual responsibility, and sacred binding under God’s authority.

  • Humility and Servanthood: Paul’s exhortation in Philippians 2:3–5 urges spouses to adopt Christ’s self-emptying attitude, prioritizing the other’s good above self-interest.
  • Shepherding as a Model: In biblical literature, shepherding denotes guidance, protection, nourishment, and restoration (Ps 23; John 10:11). Marriage partners can emulate this by actively nurturing, protecting, and guiding each other spiritually, emotionally, and relationally.

2. Community as a Crucial Support System

Marriage flourishes not in isolation but within covenantal community: local church, small groups, and peer accountability. Historically, the early Church emphasized mutual care (Acts 2:42–47), creating a model for today’s marital support systems.

Church Involvement

  • Regular participation in worship and fellowship fosters spiritual anchoring.
  • Pastors and elders provide shepherding guidance, biblical correction, and referrals for counseling.

Small Groups and Peer Accountability

  • Small groups provide safe venues for transparency, prayer, and reflection.
  • Peer couples or mentors offer practical examples of servanthood in marriage and reinforce accountability in communication, conflict resolution, and spiritual disciplines.

3. Biblical Counseling and Professional Support

Biblical counseling integrates Scripture and the gospel into practical problem-solving, helping couples navigate conflict, manage sin patterns, and restore relational harmony.

  • Focuses on repentance, forgiveness, and transformation in the image of Christ.
  • Early intervention preserves relational health before destructive patterns become entrenched.

Practical Applications:

  • One-on-one pastoral counseling
  • Certified Christian counselors specializing in marriage
  • Retreats or workshops on communication and conflict management

4. Spiritual Practices and the Role of the Holy Spirit

Intercessory Practices

  • Joint prayer invites the Holy Spirit to guide decision-making, soften hearts, and cultivate humility.
  • Scripture memorization, meditation, and fasting reinforce spiritual alignment.

Spirit-Led Conflict Resolution

  • Couples can discern God’s will for reconciliation, modeling forgiveness and empathy as Christ taught (Col 3:12–14).
  • Servant leadership in marriage is both practical and spiritual, combining action with prayerful dependence on God.

5. Communication and Conflict Through Servanthood

Communication in marriage is not merely transactional—it is transformational, reflecting Christ’s humility.

  • Fighting for Your Marriage emphasizes conflict resolution strategies rooted in respect, patience, and listening.
  • How a Husband/Wife Speaks stresses intentionality in speech, using communication to build up rather than tear down, mirroring Christ’s example.

Practical approaches include:

  • Structured weekly check-ins
  • Active listening exercises
  • Conflict-resolution frameworks emphasizing reconciliation over “winning”

6. Spiritual Growth Together

Shared Devotionals and Media

  • Marriage-specific devotionals guide couples to meditate on humility, forgiveness, and servant love.
  • Podcasts and online teachings reinforce biblical insights in accessible formats.

Reading and Study

  • Joint Bible study encourages deeper understanding of covenantal dynamics, gender roles, and servant leadership.
  • Couples can reflect on discussion prompts to integrate theology into lived experience.

7. Conclusion: Marriage as Discipleship

Christian marriage is a discipleship journey, where humility, servanthood, and shepherding become daily practices, not merely ideals. Covenant partners model Christ to each other and the broader community, transforming relational patterns through grace, accountability, and mutual spiritual growth.

Discussion Questions

  1. How does understanding marriage as a covenant with God shape the way spouses approach conflict and communication?
  2. In what ways can small groups or peer accountability circles serve as modern-day shepherds for marital health?
  3. How can couples integrate the Holy Spirit’s guidance in decision-making, prayer, and conflict resolution?
  4. Reflect on practical examples of servant leadership in your marriage—what patterns of humility and care can be strengthened?
  5. How do devotional readings, podcasts, and other media resources complement the biblical counseling process in fostering a Christ-centered marriage?

Bibliography

  • Chapman, Gary. Fighting for Your Marriage: Positive Steps for Preventing Divorce and Building a Lasting Love. Moody Publishers, 2013.
  • Chapman, Gary, and Kimberly Miller. How a Husband Speaks: Leading and Loving Your Wife Through Godly Communication (How They Speak). Moody Publishers, 2020.
  • Chapman, Gary, and Kimberly Miller. How a Wife Speaks: Loving Your Husband Well Through Godly Communication (How They Speak). Moody Publishers, 2020.
  • Chapman, Gary. It Begins with You: The 9 Hard Truths About Love That Will Change Your Life. Tyndale House Publishers, 2017.
  • Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Zondervan, 2008.
  • Scazzero, Pete. Emotionally Healthy Spirituality: Unleashing the Power of Transforming Your Inner Life. Zondervan, 2010.
  • Wright, N. T. Paul for Everyone: The Prison Letters (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon). SPCK, 2002.

Recommended Additional Reading

  • Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy – Gary Thomas
  • Marriage and the Mystery of the Gospel – Ray Ortlund
  • The Meaning of Marriage – Timothy Keller
  • Small group guides on Christian marriage from Focus on the Family or The Navigators
  • Podcasts: The Art of Marriage, MarriageToday, and Focus on the Family Marriage Podcast

The Covenant of Marriage Communication – Conference Notes

Posted by expedition44 on

Communicating as Covenant Partners: A Christ-Centered Theology and Practice of Marriage Communication

Introduction

Marriage is more than a social institution or emotional partnership—it is a holy covenant established by God, modeled throughout Scripture, and fulfilled in Christ’s relationship with the Church. Communication within marriage is not merely a set of skills; it is a sacramental expression of covenanted love, shaped by identity in Christ and sustained by grace.

In a world of transactional relationships and consumerized romance, Christian couples are called to something deeper: speaking truth in love (Eph. 4:15), bearing one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), and reflecting God’s steadfast love (חסד, chesed) in how they listen, speak, and respond to one another.

I. Covenant as the Foundation for Communication

1. The Hebraic Concept of Covenant

In Scripture, covenant (ברית, berith) is not a contract; it is a relational pledge grounded in faithfulness and identity. It structures marriage not around feelings or performance, but around being–with–one–another under God.

  • Genesis 2:24—“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
    One flesh implies unity in identity, purpose, and narrative—a shared life.
  • Malachi 2:14–16—God calls Israel my companion (רעיה, re‘iyah) in covenant, highlighting vow-keeping as essential to relational integrity.
    Marriage communication reflects this same vow-oriented faithfulness.

2. Christ and the Church as the Ultimate Covenant Model

Ephesians 5:25–33 anchors marital love in Christ’s sacrificial love for the Church:

  • Self–giving love
  • Cleansing through the Word
  • Nurturing growth and flourishing

In this model, communication is not negotiable nor optional—it is an expression of covenant identity.

II. Biblical Models of Christ-Centered Communication

1. Jesus: Communicating with Presence and Truth

Jesus embodied communication that was:

  • Attentive — He saw and called individuals by name (Mark 10:21; John 4:27–30).
  • Restorative — He spoke truth that healed rather than harmed (John 8:1–11).
  • Sacrificial — His words pierced, yet offered life (John 6:60–69).

Application for couples:

  • Be fully present in conversation (no half-listening).
  • Seek truth to heal, not to win.

2. Paul: Words That Build Up

Paul repeatedly encourages the church to communicate with grace:

  • Ephesians 4:29 — “Let no corrupting talk come out … but only such as is good for building up.”
  • Colossians 3:12–14 — Compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, forgiveness, love.

Application for couples:

  • Make speech an agent of edification, not accusation.
  • Aim for restoration and peace (Matt. 5:9).

3. Proverbs: Wisdom for Everyday Speech

Proverbs 15:1 contrasts gentleness with provocation:

  • “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.”

Application for couples:

  • Choose tone and timing wisely.
  • Slow down before responding; give space for Spirit-guided reflection.

III. Avoiding Destructive Patterns: The “Crazy Cycle” and Other Traps

John and Stacy Edwards’ Love & Respect highlights the “Crazy Cycle”:

  • Wives want love, feel unheard →
  • Husbands want respect, feel dismissed →
  • Escalation ensues.

While their gender framing has sparked discussion, the core insight resonates with covenant communication: each partner deeply desires to be known, honored, and treasured.

Redemptive pattern:

  • Respond to hurts with clarifying questions rather than assumptions.
  • Affirm identity (“I hear you; your heart matters to me”), then seek understanding.

IV. Communication as Intimacy: Pillars for Practice

Drawing from One Extraordinary Marriage (6 Pillars of Intimacy):

1. Physical Presence

Not just being in the same room—being fully present and undistracted.

2. Emotional Space

Create an environment where vulnerability is welcomed, not weaponized.

3. Spiritual Unity

Pray together before you problem-solve together.

4. Intellectual Engagement

Value curiosity over defensiveness.

5. Relational Investment

Set rhythms (weekly check-ins, shared devotions) that speak covenant over chaos.

6. Communal Support

Accountability with trusted mentors or couples enriches communication health.

V. Tools That Serve Covenant Communication

1. Love Languages (Gary Chapman)

Understanding each other’s primary love languages—words of affirmation, quality time, acts of service, gifts, physical touch—enhances mutual empathy and expressive clarity.

2. Rhythms from Sacred Marriage (Gary Thomas)

Thomas reframes marriage as sanctification before satisfaction. Communication becomes a means to God’s glory, not just emotional comfort.

3. Eternal Perspective from The Meaning of Marriage (Timothy Keller)

Marriage reflects Christ’s gospel: steadfast, gracious, covenantal. Communication is therefore missionary—bearing witness in everyday speech.

4. You and Me Forever (Francis & Lisa Chan)

Focuses couples on shared Gospel mission, reducing self-absorption and enhancing sacrificial dialogue.

VI. Practical Communication Principles Grounded in Covenant Identity

1. Listen Before You Respond

Listening communicates worth and attention.

Practical tip:

  • Reflect back what you heard before responding.

2. Speak Truth in Love

Truth without love wounds; love without truth obscures reality.

Practical tip:

  • Use “I” statements and describe specific behaviors, not character labels.

3. Forgive and Seek Forgiveness

Covenant speech includes reconciliation language.

Practical tip:

  • Practice short, daily reconciliations to prevent relational drift.

4. Pray Before Difficult Conversations

Invite the Spirit to shape hearts before words are exchanged.

Practical tip:

  • Frame hard discussions with scripture (“Lord, make us quick to listen…” James 1:19).

5. Celebrate Small Wins

Acknowledging growth builds trust.

Practical tip:

  • Weekly “gratitude moments” during meals or prayer times.

Conclusion: Communicating as Covenant Worship

Communication in Christian marriage is not primarily a technique—it is covenant language. It reflects who we are in Christ and how covenant love shapes everyday life. Words become acts of worship, spaces of grace, and pathways of transformation when we speak and listen in the presence of God.

May our marriages echo the speech of Christ—patient, kind, humble, forgiving, and anchored in love that never ends (1 Cor. 13:4–8).

Discussion Questions

1. Covenant vs. Contract: How Does Ontology Shape Communication?

The Hebrew concept of בְּרִית (berith) frames marriage as a covenant grounded in identity and faithfulness rather than performance or emotional satisfaction.

  • In what ways does viewing marriage as covenant (rather than contract) reshape expectations during conflict?
  • How might this covenantal framework alter the way couples interpret silence, criticism, or emotional withdrawal?
  • How does Malachi 2:14–16 challenge modern consumerist assumptions about relational fulfillment?

2. Christological Communication: Imitating the Speech of Jesus

Ephesians 5 roots marriage in the self-giving love of Christ.

  • How does Christ’s communicative posture (John 4; John 8; Mark 10:21) inform a theology of attentiveness and truth-telling in marriage?
  • What does it mean to “cleanse by the washing of water with the word” (Eph. 5:26) in the context of marital speech?
  • In practical terms, how can couples ensure their words are redemptive rather than corrective alone?

3. The “Crazy Cycle” and the Doctrine of Sin

Eggerich’s “Crazy Cycle” describes relational escalation when love and respect feel absent.

  • How does this dynamic reflect the broader biblical doctrine of sin as relational fracture (Gen. 3)?
  • In what ways does pride distort listening and self-giving communication?
  • How might a theology of repentance interrupt destructive communication cycles?

4. Sanctification Through Speech

Gary Thomas argues marriage is more about holiness than happiness.

  • How can communication function as a primary instrument of sanctification?
  • Reflect on James 1:19–20 and Ephesians 4:29. What spiritual disciplines are necessary for obedient speech?
  • How might difficult conversations serve as means of grace rather than merely problems to solve?

5. Identity in Christ and Shared Mission

Drawing from Keller and the Chans, marriage reflects the gospel and participates in mission.

  • How does shared identity “in Christ” stabilize communication when emotions fluctuate?
  • What practices (prayer, shared Scripture, missional engagement) tangibly reinforce covenant identity in daily dialogue?
  • How does a shared eternal vision recalibrate trivial conflicts?

Bibliography

Chapman, Gary. The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts. Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 2015.

Chan, Francis, and Lisa Chan. You and Me Forever: Marriage in Light of Eternity. Colorado Springs: Claire Love Publishing, 2014.

Eggerichs, Emerson. Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004.

Keller, Timothy, with Kathy Keller. The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God. New York: Dutton, 2011.

Thomas, Gary. Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Gregoire, Sheila Wray. The Great Sex Rescue. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2021.

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

Block, Daniel I. “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel.” In Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, edited by Ken M. Campbell, 33–102. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.

Teaching Philosophy and Theology

Posted by expedition44 on

I have taught theology and religion in higher education for most of my life and what continually excites me is the continual innovation of theological interpretation. I have taken many years of Biblical language coursework which reflects in me now holding several related degrees, and I often joke that all my years of hard study could be traded for the simple innovation particularly of a good digital interlinear within the last 5 years. As an example, higher education within theology now attempts to better teach how to use linguistic interpretation tools (such as an online interlinear) rather than spending a lot of time actually teaching the language itself.

There are several factors that influence this conversation. In philosophical instruction deduction and induction give us a basis for understanding and learning attribution. Deduction as a construct does not bring forth knowledge any more than induction. [1] Dewey M. Beegle, for instance, opts for a priority of induction (Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973, p. 16) and he chides the upholders of inerrancy for having permitted an Aristotelian scholastic method of deductive reasoning to obscure the phenomena of Scripture which, he feels, should have been the foundation on which inductive reasoning could have developed a truly biblical view. [2] Yet he has a place for both. Naturally an inductive study tends to be more exegetical in nature where several textures of interpretation come into play such as 1) inner texture, 2) intertexture, 3) social and cultural texture, 4) ideological texture, and 5) sa‐cred texture. [3] Deductive studies are usually eisegetical which is prompted by a topic, doctrine, or concept. [4] Logos Software specialists and Ben Ho would then deduct that “The deductive method of reasoning moves toward necessary conclusions derived from correct connections between premises premises which are all either given or assumed to be true. The inductive method of reasoning moves toward possible conclusions derived from hypothetical connections between premises (observations) which are selected from among all possible true premises (observations). [5]

Many of these things combined with a better modern world understanding of learning have helped scholars and teachers approach theology and the life applications of studying both biblically and systematically. Bloom’s Taxonomy, for instance, is a classification of the different objectives and skills that educators set for their students otherwise known as learning objectives. [6] Understanding learning styles and fine tuning a taxonomy tailored to theology such as I began explaining through the lens of linguistics has very much changed the shape and applications of religious texts academically and towards a spiritual life application.

It is quite intriguing for religion based on a text that is at most 3500 years old (in some cases) to still be the topic of several new theological revelations. [7] And I say this from historical texture rather than spiritual. I also find that as religious studies, biblical studies and both systematic and biblical theology are all closely related fields; the nature of the scientific approach can change immensely across the different threads. [8] I have found that as time flows different things impact the interest levels of students that you might not get in other humanities. Authorship seems more well read in a spiritual climate, practices, beliefs, and traditions [9] are often greater impacted by culture trends and larger organization input. On one hand the more systematic side of things tends to be objective and academic while the experiences, approaches, applications, and examinations [10] (discussed more often in a taxonomy conversation) often tend to be more of the spiritual nature and difficult to measure. There is also an anthropological, cultural, and sociological texture [11] that influence interpretation both at the level of the intended audience and to our current life application. These tend to carry more faith based or subjective assertations. All of these dynamics have the ability to deepen your understanding of the religion at hand but accomplish the feat in very different methodologies. 

I say all of these things, to come to the conclusion that there has never been as exciting as a time in history to teach theology. Unlike the other humanities, this will have the power to change every facet of life as you know it. Your life will truly be transformed by the interpretation of the text.

  1. https://philosophical-theology.com/2024/05/05/deduction-induction-tag/
  2. https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/induction-and-deduction-with-reference-to-inspiration
  3. Vernon K. Robbins. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996. ISBN 978-1-56338-183-6.
  4. https://www.fastmissions.com/article/inductive-vs-deductive-study
  5. https://sermons.logos.com/sermons/113029-inductive-and-deductive-bible-studies?sso=false
  6. https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/#gsc.tab=0
  7. https://the-bible.net/how-old-is-the-bible/
  8. Carson, D. A. (2018). NIV, Biblical Theology Study Bible, eBook: Follow God’s Redemptive Plan as It Unfolds throughout Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 9780310450436.
  9. Sponsel, Leslie E. (2014). “Spiritual Ecology”. In Leeming, David A. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion (2nd ed.). Boston: Springer. pp. 1718–1723. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6086-2_9295. ISBN 978-1-4614-6087-9.
  10. Garrett, James Leo (2014). Systematic Theology, Volume 1, Fourth Edition. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 9781498206594.
  11. Andy Clark, David J Chalmers (January 1998). “The extended mind”. Analysis. 58 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1093/analys/58.1.7. JSTOR 3328150.; reprinted as: Andy Clark, David J Chalmers (2010). “Chapter 2: The extended mind”. In Richard Menary (ed.). The Extended Mind. MIT Press. pp. 27–42. ISBN 9780262014038.

Theologies of Biblical Healing

Posted by expedition44 on

In theology people are going to interpret passages differently...

This article has 7,330 words and will take most people 39 minutes to read.

My good friend Dr. Steve Cassell and I see 99.9% of theology very similarly. But occasionally we take slightly diverging views. I have said this before, but much of our relationship would look like an ongoing respectful healthy argument to most people. This may be described as a Mars Hill brotherhood. Perhaps you might say iron sharpening iron except that term is often used amongst disagreements which I do not think really summarizes our spiritual conversation. Steve and I have a healthy banter in which we work through all kinds of theologies going back and forth. Steve came from a word-of-faith background, and I came from a more traditional yet also spirit-filled background. Steve has been personally influenced by and is a regional representative for Andrew Womack Ministries International (AWMI.net). Both Steve and Andrew hold a minor view, not only recognizing that the cross brings spiritual healing (as nearly every Christian would confer) but also complete physical healing and health. Steve also sees the power to heal as similar to any other gift and I see it as possibly more of something God sets aside or “grants” to some extent; meaning you have it, or you don’t. Some people call this an anointing. Although this is another debated subject that you can read on here. In this case, I hold the mainstream view on healing and Steve holds a minor view.

Some of the minor views that we both hold would be to believe in conditionalism rather than the significantly more accepted view on ‘Hell’ of Eternal Conscious Torment. We also both see Heaven as an intermediate state with the final eschatological state or place for those with God as being a recreated Heaven and Earth (which most theologians I know would agree with, but your normal everyday church pew Christian doesn’t think this way.) We both do not hold a physical ‘rapture’ view of the ‘End Times’.

We also do not hold to any of the normal interpretations of the Calvinism TULIP. Most mainstream churches are going to agree with 2-3 Calvinist positions on this yet probably would not openly consider themselves Calvinist. We wouldn’t accept any of the TULIP views at least to the degree that a reformed church or Calvinist would present them. I could go all day on interpretations like this, but I think you get the point.

Today, I have invited Steve to join me in this article to explain and define our perhaps slight differences in terms of God’s healing power. To be clear we both believe and operate in faith for God’s healing power. Jesus said that believers will lay hands on the sick, and the sick will recover (Mark 16:18). (But our interpretations differ, will all sick recover or just some?) We both train the body of Christ so that they can do the work of the ministry in this area (Eph. 4:11-12). The day of the one-man show in the body of Christ needs to come to an end, and we are literally seeing that take place all around us in our respective opportunities of ministry. Steve and I experience firsthand miracles nearly every day that some people have never experienced (or even seen) once in their lifetime. In fact, we both expect God to do these things and in faith know that He does and will. In many ways we are expectant and in tune with the healing power of Jesus every hour of our lives. We experience nearly the same healing experiences day in and day out in the kingdom and yet explain the theology of what has taken place through different interpretive lenses. We both believe that everyone is called to heal in Jesus’ name and that in that sense it is a spiritual gift. Yet, I would believe that God chooses to empower some as anointed to truly have a more powerful version of this gift while others likely won’t get there. Perhaps that is a developed spiritual gift like any other, but some people seem to have it and others don’t.

This theological difference comes to fruition in varying ways. When someone comes to me and asks that we pray for healing for them or someone else I often feel the spirit telling me right away that they will be healed or that we need to simply pray for God’s will. If I feel the spirit telling me they are going to be healed then I simply declare it in Jesus’ name, and they are healed. I can probably count the times on one hand when this didn’t come to fruition and I can’t tell you why, but I am also not hung up on it. As you can imagine, this is confusing to people asking for me to heal them or simply pray for healing. “Why did Doc Ryan pray and heal one person and then the next person in line he simply shared perhaps a theology of trusting in the Lord, faith, timing, sovereignty, why God may not choose to intervene, or even ministry through brokenness?”

Dr. Steve on the other hand seems to strongly believe that if the person that comes to him has the faith to be healed, they will be (since he also leads by that faith.) In fact, sometimes I see Dr. Steve as being so set apart as God’s healing agent that perhaps God tips His hat to Dr. Steve and allows Steve to command healing even when that may not have been the plan of God. (Oh boy…. this just set off a bunch of peoples alerts on what they think of the sovereignty of God and changeability might or should be.) I would say this is very similar to those that we see in scripture that have the intimacy to wrestle with God and God actually has honored their requests and seemingly delayed or changed his mind as a result of empowering them to actually harness the manifestation of God’s power in them. You might recall in Exodus 32 when Moses pleaded with God so that he would not destroy the people he had saved. The Lord told Moses he would not take out his wrath on Israel. Moses immediately picked up the two stone tablets the Lord had given to him earlier, with the Ten Commandments on them, and returned them to his people. (you may want to look at this wording again) God may even endow His power and doesn’t necessarily keep track or intervene in every situation but allows the person to represent Him in this way. The disciples seem to have been given powers yet come back telling Jesus they couldn’t heal some. Jesus was even unable to heal at one point in Matthew 13 and Mark 6. So, what are all the dynamics of healing?

I have invited Steve to chime in on this article and have noted his comments in blue:

Hello Expedition 44 peeps! Dr. Steve here…

Doc Ryan is accurate in everything he has portrayed about our covenantal relationship and my beliefs. I am interjecting in this place and will do this periodically throughout the article to clarify or exegete my position. This is my first place to interrupt quickly. The first sentence of the last paragraph stating my faith for believing in a 100% manifestation for everyone who approaches me in faith (please note ‘IN FAITH’) comes from ‘watching’ the ministry of Jesus. There was never a time or a person who was turned away when they approached Him in humility and faith. It is a bit simplistic just to base a theology on a truth like that, but I tend to be a smidge more simple regarding actual interactive ministry. Theology is infinitely complex because the One we study (-ology, from the Greek ‘logos’) is infinitely complex. But the Gospel is simple and should remain that way. The way Jesus did the actual ministry (adding in the progressive developing aspects of the ekklesia and ecclesiology of the Epistles and Acts) is what I target as a carbon copy (same with Doc Ryan).

Hebrews 1:3a – ‘The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature…’

Hebrews 13:8 – ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.’

Theology = infinite complexity. Gospel = childlike simplicity.

We both Agree with Andrew Womack when he says, “One of the worst doctrines in the body of Christ is the belief that God controls everything that happens. Fundamentalists/Evangelical Christians believe that God either controls or allows everything and that Satan has to get His permission before he can do anything.” That’s a convenient theology because it absolves the individual of any personal responsibility. God’s will doesn’t automatically come to pass. We have to believe and cooperate with God to receive what He has provided and in some cases, “covenanted” for us.

But from there Steve and I slightly part ways. AWMI and Steve would continue…

___________________////___________________

Andrew’s theology regarding healing is often referred to as “the finished work of the cross.” Personally, I cringe at this simply because I never like to give merit to the cross. (IMHO, this is a Calvinist phrase usually tied into the doctrine of limited atonement, so we often don’t use this phrase.) Steve has actually changed his verbiage over the years to say, “the finished work of Jesus.” I don’t want to wear a crucifix or even entertain much observance of the cross because I want to focus on the resurrection and ascension that gave life. Yes, the cross was part of the plan, so this isn’t a huge problem for me, but I prefer to focus on the victory of the stories in Jesus -not dark places that were traveled on the way to victory. It is similar to someone sharing a testimony… don’t spend an hour on the muck that you lived in (sounding like you are almost bragging about it) and 5 minutes on the redemption, flip it around. There is a place for the cross but the focus of nearly all of the NT after the Gospel is on the resurrection and what that means for “salvation” and life in Christ here and now but also to come. I do realize that seeing a cross can point people to the victory of Jesus which is why I have a cross at the “range” where we have TOV and have for many years.

Steve here again… Doc Ryan is right again. I have adjusted my language due to the expansion of my revelation on the atonement. The aggregation of information and bringing in the vast matrix of typological precursors from the Old Testament sources has expanded how I understand the atonement to be. (To expand your understanding, see Expedition 44 series on ‘Atonement’ HERE.) Yet knowing that each facet of that atonement process was known, calculated, and used for human redemption is stronger in me today than before. I see that the stripes Jesus took for our healing (1 Peter 2:24) have an even stronger application knowing that Jesus’ atonement was sufficient in all areas, for all people, for all time.

___________________////___________________

With that let’s jump in, Healing is already an accomplished work according to I Peter 2:24,

“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”

STEVE: The term ‘healed’ is in the simple past tense (aorist indicative passive). RYAN GREEK 101: The Aorist is used for past time and portrays perfective aspect (portraying the action as a bounded whole, or in summary fashion without reference to the way it unfolds in time). As a Passive tense, the subject is the patient of the verbal action: “he was eaten,” “they were killed.” Grammatically in this verse we both agree healing is an action that took place and happened once, the action itself (the cross) theologically doesn’t need to continue or happen again. What it “accomplished” is good for all of time.

The real question then is whether the implication is spiritual and/or physical healing. To this, Steve would say that Jesus isn’t healing people today— that “work” was accomplished 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem when He took those stripes on His back. He hasn’t, and won’t, receive any more stripes. People today only receive through faith what has already been accomplished by Jesus thousands of years ago. (To be clear I -Ryan agree with this in a sense of spiritual healing, we have everything we need, and we aren’t looking for any other continued work of Jesus to make healing possible.)

Andrew would continue, the Scriptures don’t tell us to pray for the sick, in the sense that we are powerless to minister healing to them. It’s just the opposite: Jesus told US to HEAL the sick (Matt. 10:1, 8; Luke 9:1, and 10:9). There’s a big difference between asking the Lord to heal people and healing them. Since Jesus is with us and will never leave me nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5), Steve would then assert that I can say with the Apostle Peter, “Such as I have give I thee” (Acts 3:6). ON the other hand, some would say that none of us has authority to heal a body, only the Creator does (Acts 3:12–13). I do not generally recommend articles from Desiring God as they tend to have a reformed bend to them, but in the spirit of reading another perspective, you might enjoy this post.

Steve here… There is a bit of a semantic point I must make. I (Steve) cannot heal anyone, ever. My confidence and power come from the designated authority granted unto me by the Great Commission and the infilling of the Holy Spirit which is where I parallel Peter’s ideology. I have the power because I have the Creator in me and His known will is to heal (Matt 8:3) congruent with His universal command to heal in the Commission. RYAN – Yes but we both agree that power is endowed to us. We are the hands and feet and physical manifestation of Jesus.

To continue, Andrew (and Steve) would say that this is what Peter said when he ministered to the lame man in Acts 3. Peter didn’t pray for this man. He didn’t say, “O God, we can do nothing without You. Please heal this man if it is Your will.” They would say and I would agree that it’s always God’s will to heal (3 John 2). We don’t ask and then wait and see. That’s not believing His Word. Instead of beggars, we need to become believers who, knowing God’s will, use our authority to heal. I believe that at least some of us (and all of us who claim Jesus to some extent) have this endowed gift from God or physical power given to us.

Steve again… I do not believe this to be a ‘some of us’ condition. The argument over the ‘have and have nots’ has raged in Christianity for far too long. I believe that there is no clergy and laity (a stale old power trip to repress the masses), no less anointed or more anointed (because when you have the Spirit of Christ you have ALL the anointing), no age limit (our children’s church sees healing all the time), and no gender category (my wife Kay is equally effective as I am). The language of ‘gift’ is usually where the disqualification seeps into one’s identity with the thought, “I just do not have that gift.” But if you were to exegete the word ‘gift’ you would see it is a derivative of ‘charis’ (grace). John tells us (John 1) that Jesus was the fullness of grace and truth. When you have Jesus you have the fullness of the Godhead in your Earthly existence and you are complete in Him (Col 2:9-10). RYAN: Steve says this really well!!! I agree, but obviously some gifts are matured and or used or even granted by God more than others.

So where do I/we slightly diverge? I would say a few things to clarify Andrew Womacks statements, and Steve actually agrees with almost everything I would assert here… We personally don’t (regularly) see through the eyes of God, although occasionally some gifted people can and do (seers). His ways are higher than ours. Hebraically it would be very selfish to think that we can request what we want “over” a God who knows more than I do. In other words, to assert that I know that healing is best in every situation is out of my pay grade. Yes, Jesus believes in healing and might endow that power to me but it also might not be in God’s “timing” or order. This could explain why sometimes God doesn’t seem to allow healing through those that were formerly given and proved to have had such things.

Steve here… My perspective is God wants people healed more than I ever could. God loves people more than I ever could. God wants people, all people, everywhere to call upon the name of the Lord for salvation (sōthēsetai, sozo) (Rom 10:13). I do not believe that God ‘wills’ some people for damnation and others for salvation and would see that known will to apply to a lesser form of ‘salvation’ in the manifestation of healing. If God loves every person enough to provide eternal salvation for them, surely His love would surpass the smaller expression of salvation in physical (or emotional) healing (Rom 8:11 and 8:32). RYAN: Well, this falls into the classic, God has the power and God has the desire so why aren’t all things and all people simply reconciled? They aren’t.

Some healing is eschatological in my view. God has created and continues to operate according to His order. We may think we know that, but I don’t think we always do. I think the ancient word order is the best way to say God’s “decisions” may be influenced by a plethora of other conditions. I see this more like the modern word algorithm. Many things come into play that may determine the will of God for any particular person or situation. There are several Biblical words for order and Jeff Benner helps us out with understanding them, but in this case, I would point you to consider the Hebrew root סדר, which again has the root דר (dar) within it. As an example, the verb סדר is found in Job 10:22; A land of darkness is like a darkness of death and without order, and the light is like darkness. This imagery is reminiscent of Genesis 1 where the heavens and the earth were in total darkness, a state of chaos. The creative power of God then “ordered” the world into a state of “order.” [1] Some things are just “above us” and I do not think we will understand them until we reach an eschatological time of understanding spiritually. I see us as watching that movie of our pasts with new eyes perhaps in heaven. My book This is the Way of Covenant Discipleship expounds on this more.

To continue both Andrew and Steve would say that they have prayed for thousands of people across the globe, and they have yet to see every person healed. It might be a problem in the heart of the one receiving prayer, or it might be something they don’t understand in regard to that particular person. But one thing they would exert or say they know for sure—it’s not God. – Personally, I would disagree. I think God’s order may be bigger than what Steve or Andrew see and believe. I also think a fallen world comes into play here. Some things are just broken and can’t be fixed this side of “death.”

Steve again… I agree with Doc Ryan that our cosmos is jacked up beyond repair in some places (human government, death, the Laws of Entropy) and is groaning with pain until the Sons of God releases it in the Eschatological Day of the Lord. (What a day that will be! Come Lord Jesus come!) But I would not classify healing here. I do not believe that what the forces of deception started through the nahash in the Garden of Eden are greater or stronger than what the Son of Man lifted up on the cross (John 3:14-15) redeemed. What Jesus accomplished in the Garden of Gethsemane is greater than what the snake did in the Garden of Eden. Jesus was the victor in the battle of the Gardens… Ryan – Amen!

___________________////___________________

An excursus on James 5:13-16: Healing, Illness, and Resurrection

Above we see that Andrew Womack says that we should not pray for the sick but simply heal them. James 5:13-16 seems to contradict this line of thought.

13 Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer offered in faith willrestore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. 

In this pericope, there are 2 separate words for “sick”. In verse 14 it is astheneo. this is a word used for sickness 18 times in the NT, and most of the LXX usage of the word is for someone who is feeble or sick. In this verse in James, the elders are asked to “pray” over him.

The second word translated as sick in verse 15 is kamonta. This word is not about illness but about being weary. In this context, it is weary from sin. So this could be sin that has led to sickness when you combine the two in the context and links back to “suffering” in verse 13 which leads off the passage.

The solution is prayer and confession in verse 16. Confession and forgiveness bring healing (is this physical healing or spiritual healing?) Now the question is about whether this is only about sin that has led to illness that has to be prayed for to bring healing or all illness? Isn’t all illness, disorder, and weariness a result of the Fall? So shouldn’t we pray for all of it?

God desires to bring about new creation in all of us! As Romans 8:19-25 states all of creation is waiting for the sons of God to be revealed and this revealing is communicated as healing through our resurrection (the redemption of our bodies). Paul explains elsewhere in 2 Corinthians 5 that this is a distinction between an earthy tent (our current body) versus a building from God (our resurrected bodies). Similarly, he speaks in 1 Corinthians 15:36 of the need to die to be resurrected because a seed does not produce life unless it dies. So if Jesus “purchased” full healing in this life what is the purpose of the resurrection of the body? If Jesus’ healing was the resurrection, why wouldn’t ours also be? Maybe the healing in this life is spiritual (and resuscitation of life), but actual true healing is in their resurrection.

Steve again… This is a place I will deviate from Doc Ryan a smidge as well. I teach in our covenant community (Beloved Church) that sickness and disease have been defeated through the atonement, but that does not assert that the aging process of time has been canceled. Just as one must fight for holiness against sin (which was FULLY defeated in the atonement) one must fight the temptation for sickness and disease attacking one’s flesh because it was equally defeated. Our enemy is a persistent cuss and will try and enslave us with the defeated force of sin and will equally try to kill us with the defeated forces of sickness, disease, strife, pride, and all the other tricks up his slimy sleeve.

___________________////___________________

The next issue that similarly we don’t see eye to on is healing through the atonement. It might be good to simply first read the AWMI statement on this here. I am going to be quoting several things from this post. [2] Andrew Wommack also has a more in-depth book on this subject called, “God Wants You Well”, and I would suggest reading it regardless of your view. (NOTE: I have more books on my bookshelf that I don’t agree with than I do, this is a good measure of truly searching for spiritual truth.) I also love AWMI and believe we can learn a great deal from them and as believers need to support His ministry; I just don’t see eye to eye on this one small part of his overall theology which has come to be what he is largely known for.

Andrew (AWMI) would say that Jesus has already “purchased” healing for us. In theology, this is referred to as the ransom theory of atonement. I believe in a ransom theory in terms of Jesus “freeing the slaves” in an exodus sense of freedom, but within most ransom theories of atonement (and specifically the way that AWMI often uses it) the statements bring connotations of purchasing or buying back something. I don’t see God needing to purchase anything back from Satan (as this would put Satan with equal authority to God or having divine “rights”), or Jesus needing to buy something from God for us (Jesus and the Father are one). Moses didn’t “pay” for the Israelites from Pharoah, he simply took back what some might say was rightfully His. This seems to be more of a spiritual war than what we would describe as a purchase agreement by most people’s standards. Some would argue that this is also an example of simply letting God fight all of our battles, as Jesus also seems to allude or suggest to His followers.

Continuing, AWMI would assert that in Matthew 8:17, it says that these healings that took place were the fulfillment of the prophecy spoken by Isaiah, “With his stripes we are healed.” Andrew would interpret that this was the fulfillment that ‘He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses’ essentially alluding to that being at the cross Jesus healed our physical sicknesses, hurts, and pains. Jesus healed people physically to fulfill the scripture that says we are healed by His stripes.

-Hermeneutically I can’t do that for several reasons. I would say that most Christians do this though. I wouldn’t assert that is what the text says, I would say that is personally eisegeting the text to say something that I wouldn’t naturally read into it. Some would say we don’t have the interpretive right to make those deductions from the text (We get into some of this in this post). But if we look at this verse in context it is before Jesus even went to the cross. The effects of the ministry of the servant brought healing (not just the death on the cross). Yes, there is spiritual healing, but I don’t see the text providing all physical healing. By this measure, it would seem that no one should ever physically die. That assumption that God’s healing at the cross not only gives everlasting spiritual life but everlasting physical life here on earth obviously isn’t the case.

Steve again… This is one of the places where I think theology can get in the way and overcomplicate a simple truth. In the first sixteen verses of Matthew 8, we see a leper healed (an impossible healing by Hebraic standards) specifically because Jesus expresses it is His will for healing. Then we have a disgusting uncircumcised gentile who should have no access to the God of the Jews but Jesus makes it clear He is atoning for ALL people by healing the centurion’s slave (Slave! Another disqualified person!) without question or stipulation. Next, we have Peter’s mother-in-law (I thought a Pope could not be married… hmmm…) who gets healed simply because she was in the same house as Jesus. A woman! A mother-in-law (yikes)! Without requesting! Hard to get away from the interpretation of anybody, anytime conclusion. Then, like a cherry on top, the next part of the narrative is verse 16: “When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to Jesus, and He drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.” They just brought the masses… sinners, unrighteous, rejects, sick-from-birth folks, demon-filled mentally ill peeps, and then like an exclamation point Matthew throws in the “ALL” word to just mess with his readers. It is not coincidental that after all that, Matthew specifically tells us why, under the unction of the Holy Spirit, all of these diverse types of healings were done: This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took on our infirmities and carried our diseases.” This just seems too clear to miss Matthews’s doctrine of healing being stated, to me. Matthew seems to unabashedly call Jesus the Isaiah 53 suffering servant and part of His ministry was to defeat disease. The educated second-temple Jews reading this would have known the messianic profile that included authority over demonic beings would also include power over physical sickness/disease. RYAN: Jesus certainly had and has power of sickness and disease but when he was on earth, He didn’t seem to physically heal everyone he came in contact with, some were healed, and some weren’t. He was specific with some in healing and the woman who touched His cloak found this power but not everyone around Him or came to him was healed.

SCHOLARLY NOTE ON WHY ISAIAH 53 MAY BE A STRETCH: Using Isaiah 53 in this way as I alluded to is also hermeneutically not very acceptable by the measure of most scholars. Although I will say it is arguable. I will keep this brief, but the intended audience wouldn’t have read it this way. You have to backread this kind of messianic physical healing into the story. Several issues come into play here. Critical scholars are unified in thinking that this part of Isaiah (chs. 40-55) was not written by Isaiah of Jerusalem in the 8th century BCE, but by a different author in the mid-6th century BCE, after exile into Babylon. [3] It is to be remembered that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible are speaking to their own contexts and delivering a message for their own people to hear, about their own immediate futures… they aren’t telling fortunes, that was considered divination. There is a place for prophetical prediction but not as much as people entertain IMHO. The suffering servant here might have messianic implications but that can be problematic that not all of the personal attributes in IS 53 can describe Jesus. As an example, some of the things just aren’t true to Jesus. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future, they are talking about past suffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. Does this mean it ALSO can’t represent a future Messiah? Well to some hard-line scholars and methods of interpretation, the answer might be YES. For at least hundreds of years, Jews never interpreted this passage as referring to a future messiah. To be clear, I am not saying that it can’t have Messianic implications. But it is a very difficult passage and what I am saying, is that within the textures of interpretation, you never draw a major doctrine from a difficult passage that can’t be easily supported elsewhere. The problem is that seems to be exactly what AWMI has done with this passage.

I do agree with a lot of what Andrew says, I think his determination of the Greek word sozo is accurate, and I agree that “Healing is just as much a part of what Jesus came to accomplish in your life as forgiveness of sins.” I also agree when he says that “God is not the author of sickness in your life.” However, what I have a hard time with is his conclusion then that “God would not want you to live in sickness.” I believe some things on this earth are simply effects of a broken world. The ditch this digs is that AWMI seems to be teaching that if you have everything in spiritual order you will never be sick. So then when sickness comes you are continually questioning God on what is wrong with you or your faith, or your devotion, or your heart. You must not be experiencing healing because of your actions or lack of them. I don’t believe that. Some things are just a result of a broken world that eschatologically will eventually be healed in Jesus – but not everything will be healed here or now. We are in a state of transformation called sanctification, but Andrew would say that on earth is possible to attain that “complete” sanctification in physical healing and I would disagree – we physically die here on earth. To me, that seems pretty simple and evident and possibly even un-arguable.

Steve again… and I will dare to argue the inarguable just for a moment of healthy banter with Doc Ryan. I completely agree that we will die here on earth, and that is something that will happen to all of us. I would just argue the assumption that one must become sick, diseased, infirm, infected, and unhealthy to die. The New Testament makes a strong distinction between the death of an unbeliever and the ‘falling asleep’ of the believer. It is just personal conjecture to imply that God needs us to get eventually sick in order to die so that we can then have access to our resurrected (celestial) bodies. I believe that sickness is as much an enemy of God’s will in a person as sin is. Sin means to ‘miss the mark’ and being sick misses the mark of the creative intention of our bodies through the ‘very good’ (Gen 1:31) declaration of scripture… even science would capitulate to the truth that our bodies were designed to fight all sickness, disease and mutation. I love how God can make narcissistic scientists squirm with His infinite wisdom. RYAN – I wouldn’t see most sickness as associated or deemed as sin, but would also agree it can be a result of sin in your life.

Andrew says it is ‘false teaching’ to claim that “God is the One who causes people to die” or to say that God “puts sickness on you to humble you for some redemptive purpose and to perfect you through all this suffering” and I agree! I think that is a poor ditch that Calvinism and reformed theology continue to put people in. God is “TOV” His character doesn’t generally “DO” that people; although there may be situations where He may “USE” such things to His workings or divine order.

On the other hand, in his book, Andrew also asserts that the cross redeems believers from financial poverty. In 2 Cor 8:9, Paul says that Jesus became poor so that through his poverty believers might become rich. Wommack takes Paul literally here which I don’t agree with entirely although this is another conversation on the retribution principle and prosperity which I do somewhat see a place for. But here as it relates to this conversation, AWMI would say that Jesus’ death and resurrection provide for Christians ‘forgiveness of sins, healing, deliverance, and prosperity’ in this life (p. 20). The main issue with this kind of thinking as I have alluded to earlier is, if God intervenes for all believers to be completely well in this lifetime, why are so many seemingly devout believers that are not “well” or not rich?

Steve again, quickly… This is a slippery slope that can engulf some believers. We cannot and should not ever determine God’s will based on the experiences of some, and even the experiences of the masses. God always has had and will have a remnant of people who have experiences others do not and will not. Just because every believer does not experience peace, or joy, or forgiveness does not mean that they cannot. Prosperity and health are available to all, but not all will accept (or even know) that it is for them, just like other great and precious promises annotated throughout scripture.

___________________////___________________

To be clear here are specifically the things that I think Andrew’s theology on healing is a bit off:

  • He argues that illness and even death (p. 88) can be overcome in this age. I would say that is a poor hermeneutical claim. In fact, I might say that many verses seem to say the opposite, that God will swallow death and wipe away all tears after this life (Isa 25:8). I would also assert that this world is broken and is wasting away (2 Cor 4:16), and only at the coming of Jesus will we receive resurrection bodies (1 Cor 15:23). That’s why Paul says we are waiting for the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:23). It seems clear that the Bible indicates that in this present physical world men are appointed by God to die (e.g., Ps 90; Heb 9:27). Wouldn’t Andrews theology have more people living physically forever or being taken up into the cloud or whirlwind without actually experiencing physical death? Wouldn’t we have at least a handful of people each one of us knows experiencing this? But we don’t.

Steve here… Andrew does not believe death as a whole is to be overcome in the age, just death that is contrary to God’s plan for a person, more specifically, premature or wrongfully caused death. Otherwise, the many commands (and Jesus’ examples) to raise the dead are nonsequiturs and unrighteous. Why make the command (not request) to ‘raise the dead’ if death was supposed to just be? RYAN – Raising the dead is a possibility within God’s will but not for everyone who is in God’s will.

  • Wommack argues that Christians are redeemed from sickness and poverty but not from persecution. I see tribulation as being very key to a person’s ongoing process of sanctification. I don’t think Jesus causes the hardship but uses it in a sense of refining us. It also is going to reflect back on the idea of the prosperity gospel. As I do believe that God desires for us to experience all of the Joy he offers, some of it may not be experienced physically here on earth. I would not say that Paul was prosperous by the world’s definition after his conversion encounter on the road. If persecution exists wouldn’t sickness be part of that? Wommack answers that God allows the persecution of Christians because he loves the persecutors and wants them to repent (pp. 76–77). But Luke 22:42 suggests another reason: Jesus understands that his crucifixion is the will of God. God did not want Jesus ‘well’—God allowed (and some will even say “willed” without necessarily taking on Calvinist notions,) Jesus physically dead in order to accomplish His great redemptive purposes (Isa 53:6; Rom 8:32; Luke 22:42; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). If God in His wisdom allowed the suffering and death of his own Son, can he not allow suffering and sickness for the followers of His Son in order to accomplish his sovereign purposes? Andrew might argue a substitutional atonement theory here, that Christ took this on so that we wouldn’t have to; but I don’t think that is a good view. I think I can lightly agree to a metaphorical extent that Jesus’ death and resurrection served as a “substitute for us” but even thinking this way carries some implications that are hard to reconcile. I think Boyd can help us with this consideration. [4]

Steve again… I think this argument could be settled by the clear deviation of persecution and tribulation. Persecution that we are all universally subject to, and should even rejoice in when afflicted with, is a directed assault against us for the purpose of hindering or stopping the advancement of the Gospel or the Kingdom. Tribulation is the general agitation of life that affects the believer and unbeliever alike. A lost sinner can be tribulating because he is human, but they cannot be persecuted for righteousness sake. As ministers of reconciliation, we will suffer persecution and we are not redeemed from it because we were specifically PROMISED it by our Lord.

Finally, many Christians testify that much (or even most) of their growth in holiness has occurred through suffering (cf. Ps 119:67, 71). However according to Wommack, although someone may learn character-transforming lessons through illness, that was not God’s plan which would imply that God shouldn’t or wouldn’t allow or use it. I agree that I doubt it was his plan, but I do see God using it.

Steve again… I agree as well. God’s perfect plan is for us to learn everything through the Spirit and the scriptures, but because we miss the perfect all too often God has this loving and merciful backup plan of redeeming our mistakes into a beautiful and powerful lesson that is called a ‘testimony’.

___________________////___________________

Despite where you land here, I think it is important to understand that we need to live in unity as believers regarding the way we see healing work. One night at TOV, I said something to the extent of, “Regardless of your theology of healing, join with me in praying within the Will of God that this person may be healed.” The scripture seems to show that through prayer God’s will may be swayed towards the hearts of those that are intimate with Him. I think we can all pray for healing and/or just heal if we believe God works in us that way, but I also think it is important to realize that one person’s views on healing aren’t undeniably proven through scripture. There are different valid interpretations and we need to honor and respect people who may feel differently, uniting on what we can agree on. 

Perhaps through His order, God has already taken into account these requests and has accounted for them in faith. As we will never truly know the answer to this debate on this side of heaven, we are charged to grow deeper as disciples and pray for such things. In the end, regardless of your thoughts, we all can agree that eventually every believer will be brought to complete healing in Jesus.

Steve here in finality… My love and unity with Doc Ryan is greater today than yesterday even as we have engaged in the polemics of this deep and vast subject. A major reason for that is we have determined our covenantal love and Christian honor for one another greatly exceeds our doctrinal differences. In our unity, we both agree that God heals and that we love people enough to want them to experience that blessing. In our humility, we will both adamantly assert that MANY folks do not get healed and we do not know why. Yet that does not dissuade us from pressing into the heart of God, it moreso invigorates us towards God, His heart, and His truth. Division is demonic, diversity is divine. We pray that is your conclusion as well. RYAN – Amen and well said brother!

This article was primarily written by Dr. Will Ryan, responded to and edited by Dr. Steve Cassell, and edited in part by Dr. Matt Mouzakis.

  1. https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/hebrew-concept-of-order.htm
  2. https://cdn.awmi.net/documents/study-guides/sg417/discipleship-evangelism-study-guide-language-english-level-2-lesson-7.pdf
  3. https://ehrmanblog.org/does-isaiah-53-predict-jesus-suffering-and-death/
  4. https://reknew.org/2008/01/what-do-you-think-of-the-penal-substitutionary-view-of-the-atonement/

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