Tag Archives: blood

Red Moons, Red Heifers, and the Temptation to Weaponize Jesus

Posted by expedition44 on

Apocalyptic Anxiety, Prophetic Imagination, and Faithful Christian Eschatology

Introduction: Living Faithfully in an Age of Apocalyptic Noise

In every generation, the people of God have wrestled with headlines, celestial events, wars, and rumors of wars. In our moment, images of blood-red moons, renewed interest in the red heifer ritual, Purim framed through geopolitical conflict, and even portrayals of a militarized Jesus circulate rapidly across Christian media. These phenomena are frequently interpreted as decisive indicators that “we are in the last days.”

As followers of Christ committed to careful biblical theology, we must ask: What is faithful eschatological attentiveness, and what drifts toward speculation? How do we distinguish biblical prophecy from patterns that more closely resemble divination? And how do we guard against subtly weaponizing Jesus in the service of national or ideological agendas?

This essay proposes that much contemporary apocalyptic rhetoric conflates symbolic prophetic language with predictive sign-reading, misapplies temple typology, and risks distorting the cruciform nature of Christ’s kingship. I ask you to consider a better theology, one that is deeply rooted, Christ-centered eschatology that cultivates hope without hysteria.

Cosmic Imagery and the Language of Blood Moons

The phrase “the moon will be turned to blood” appears in Joel 2:31 and is echoed in Acts 2:20 and Revelation 6:12.¹ Yet within prophetic and apocalyptic literature, such imagery functions symbolically to describe covenantal upheaval and divine intervention, not necessarily astronomical forecasting.²

When Peter cites Joel at Pentecost (Acts 2:16–21), he interprets the prophecy as fulfilled in the outpouring of the Spirit.³ The early church did not await literal lunar phenomena; they recognized that the decisive turning point in redemptive history had already occurred in Christ’s death, resurrection, and exaltation.⁴

Scholars such as John Walton remind us that in the Ancient Near East, celestial events were commonly interpreted as omens.⁵ Israel’s Torah, however, explicitly forbids divinatory practices tied to signs and portents (Deut 18:10–14).⁶ When modern Christians assign predictive significance to eclipses in ways that mirror ancient omen-reading, the hermeneutical posture begins to resemble the very practices Scripture warns against.⁷

Apocalyptic imagery unveils theological realities—it does not invite astrological decoding.

Red Heifers, Temple Expectation, and the Finality of Christ

The red heifer ritual of Numbers 19 concerns purification under the Mosaic covenant.⁸ Contemporary movements anticipating a Third Temple sometimes treat the reintroduction of this ritual as a necessary eschatological trigger.⁹

Yet the New Testament consistently reinterprets temple theology christologically. Jesus declares himself the true temple (John 2:19–21).¹⁰ Paul extends temple identity to the gathered people of God (1 Cor 3:16).¹¹ The epistle to the Hebrews insists that Christ’s priestly work is once-for-all and surpasses the sacrificial system (Heb 9–10).¹²

To frame renewed animal sacrifice as a prophetic necessity risks implying insufficiency in Christ’s atoning work.¹³ As Steve Gregg has argued in his engagement with Revelation’s various interpretive frameworks, much apocalyptic expectation misunderstands the covenantal transition already accomplished in the first century.¹⁴

Looking for a rebuilding of the Temple is a slap in the face to Jesus; it is essentially saying you don’t believe He was enough.

The trajectory of Scripture moves from shadow to substance—not from substance back to shadow.

Purim, Empire, and the Danger of Weaponizing Jesus

The book of Esther recounts Jewish survival within imperial Persia and culminates in the celebration of Purim (Esth 9).¹⁵ It is a narrative of providence and covenant preservation—not a blueprint for Christian militarization.

Revelation 19 portrays Christ as a rider on a white horse, yet the sword proceeds from his mouth—symbolizing the power of his word.¹⁶ Earlier, Revelation presents the conquering Messiah as the slain Lamb (Rev 5:6).¹⁷ The Lamb’s victory comes through self-giving sacrifice.

Shane J. Wood argues that Revelation functions as an unveiling of how empire masquerades as ultimate power while the Lamb redefines kingship through suffering love.¹⁸ The book calls believers to faithful witness, not violent triumphalism.¹⁹

When Jesus is draped in national symbolism or framed primarily as a military figure aligned with geopolitical agendas, the church risks conflating the kingdom of God with earthly power structures—precisely the confusion Revelation critiques.²⁰

The Lamb conquers not by coercion, but by cruciform allegiance.

Prophecy and Divination: A Crucial Distinction

Biblical prophecy is covenant proclamation rooted in God’s revealed purposes.²¹ Divination, by contrast, seeks hidden knowledge through decoding signs, omens, or speculative patterns.²²

Jeremiah warns against prophets who speak “visions of their own minds” (Jer 23:16).²³ Ezekiel rebukes those who practice “lying divination” (Ezek 13:6–9).²⁴ Jesus himself cautions his disciples against alarmism: “See that you are not alarmed” (Matt 24:6).²⁵

The apostolic exhortation is vigilance without panic (1 Thess 5:1–8).²⁶ When Christian rhetoric becomes dominated by chronological speculation tied to celestial events or ritual developments, it begins to mirror the divinatory impulse Scripture explicitly forbids.²⁷

True prophecy deepens faithfulness. Divination fuels anxiety.

Eschatology as Unveiling: Living in the Already and Not Yet

Christian eschatology has long been described as “already and not yet.”²⁸ Christ has decisively inaugurated the kingdom, yet its fullness awaits consummation.

Wood’s “thin veil” metaphor captures apocalyptic literature’s purpose: heaven’s perspective breaks into earthly history, revealing who truly reigns.²⁹ Revelation is not primarily a timetable but a theological unveiling of allegiance, empire, and worship.³⁰

Thus, blood moons need not provoke fear. Red heifers need not signal regression. Wars and rumors of wars do not require sacralized nationalism. The church’s vocation remains steadfast: faithful witness shaped by the Lamb.³¹

Peter reminds believers that they are a holy nation—not defined by geopolitical boundaries, but by covenant identity in Christ (1 Pet 2:9–12).³²

Our eschatological posture is hopeful watchfulness grounded in the finished work of Jesus.

Conclusion: Hope Without Hysteria

The final word of Revelation is not dread but invitation: “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come’” (Rev 22:17).³³

Apocalyptic texts unveil hope, not panic. They expose empire, not empower it. They center the Lamb, not lunar cycles.

To remain faithful in an age of apocalyptic noise is not to disengage from current events, but to interpret them through the crucified and risen Christ. We do not decode eclipses; we embody the kingdom. We do not weaponize Jesus; we witness to him.

In a world prone to sensationalism, the church’s steadiness becomes its testimony.

Footnotes

  1. Joel 2:31; Acts 2:20; Rev 6:12.
  2. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation.
  3. Acts 2:16–21.
  4. Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation.
  5. John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament.
  6. Deut 18:10–14.
  7. Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm.
  8. Num 19.
  9. Randall Price, The Temple and Bible Prophecy.
  10. John 2:19–21.
  11. 1 Cor 3:16.
  12. Heb 9–10.
  13. David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection.
  14. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views.
  15. Esth 9.
  16. Rev 19:15.
  17. Rev 5:6.
  18. Shane J. Wood, Thinning the Veil.
  19. Rev 12:11.
  20. Rev 13; Bauckham.
  21. Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination.
  22. Deut 18:10–14.
  23. Jer 23:16.
  24. Ezek 13:6–9.
  25. Matt 24:6.
  26. 1 Thess 5:1–8.
  27. Heiser, The Unseen Realm.
  28. George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future.
  29. Wood, Thinning the Veil.
  30. Eugene H. Peterson, Reversed Thunder.
  31. Rev 12:11.
  32. 1 Pet 2:9–12.
  33. Rev 22:17.

Bibliography

Bauckham, Richard. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Brueggemann, Walter. The Prophetic Imagination. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Gregg, Steve. Revelation: Four Views. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Ladd, George Eldon. The Presence of the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Peterson, David. Hebrews and Perfection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peterson, Eugene H. Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John and the Praying Imagination. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

Price, Randall. The Temple and Bible Prophecy. Eugene, OR: Harvest House.

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Wood, Shane J. Thinning the Veil: Revelation and the Kingdom of Heaven. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing.

The covenant and marriage 2

Posted by expedition44 on

HIS COVENANT – בריתו

In Hebrew the word Berith is nearly always translated as the English word Covenant. What is the meaning of the word covenant in Biblical context? The word covenant according to more than 40 biblical authors spanning 1500 remains consistent. In most situations the word takes on a pledge or an alliance, coming from the Semitic root word barah which means to bind, to cut and to break (bread). You might raise an eyebrow at the inference of bread, but if you are a covenant keeper you will immediately go to the elements of communion as a symbol of covenant. The idea goes back thousands of years when “deals” or “agreements” were made over the breaking of bread, which meant sharing a meal together. Today in the Middle East you might still find such a ritual.

Chaim Bentorah reminds us that, “When David said in Psalms 23:5:  “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:” he was making a reference to reconciliation with his enemies for when you had a meal together it was to talk peace.  Eating a meal together was an excellent opportunity to negotiate terms of a berith or covenant.  It was also an excellent opportunity to off your enemy by slipping a little poison in his food.  Thus, to share a meal with an enemy was the ultimate in a good will gesture.  You were showing that you trusted this enemy’s intentions for peace enough that you would stake your life on it believing he would not poison you.” [1]

However, in other Middle East cultures we see pacts or covenants were made by passing between cut pieces of flesh of an animal sacrifice.[2] In the Old Testament, the English phrase “make a covenant” is most often a translation of the Hebrew kārat berît, which literally means “cut a covenant.”[3] The verb kārat means “cut off, cut down,”[4] and the noun berît means “covenant,”[5] similar in meaning to the words pact, compact, treaty, alliance, and league. While other Hebrew verbs are sometimes used with berît, such as qûm (“establish” or “confirm”) and nātan (“give”),[6] kārat occurs ninety times in the Hebrew Bible in reference to making covenants.[7]

In the Ancient Near East, it was common for two people to make a covenant by cutting animals in half, splitting the halves, and then walking in between the pieces to make an oath. By walking between the split animals, each person was swearing that if they broke their part of the agreement, they would meet the same end as the sacrificed animal. [8]

In evangelicalism, there is a lot of talk about conditional and unconditional covenants; however, when you really dive in, you are going to find that every covenant has an element of conditionalism to it. I will even say, there really is no such thing as an unconditional covenant. In the dance of Grace, every amazing action is met with a reciprocal and similar reaction. [9] Ben Witherington shares, “covenants while many were unilateral, were almost always conditional in nature. This is the very nature of a covenant with stipulations, which if they were not kept, the suzerain had obligated himself to enact the curse sanctions. Thereafter, it was up to the suzerain to decide whether even to do another covenant or not. Fortunately for us, the Biblical Suzerain, our God, has chosen to continue to re-up, either renewing (some of the OT covenants), or in the case of the new covenant, starting afresh with a new covenant, which promised to be more permanent.” [10] Witherington uses the terminology, “more permanent” to show that our English idea of “unconditional” leaves us a little short.

If your wondering about God and animal sacrifice. You are probably heading in the right direction. My Friend Greg Boyd has an excellent write up here. Animals were sacrificed not because God needed them to forgive people but because his people needed them to remember the death consequences of sin and to therefore repent when they’d broken covenant with God. God meets them in their broken culture of animal sacrifice and eventually turns it towards His good. Later in Israel’s history, when people began sacrificing animals without repenting in their hearts, the Lord told them (through prophets like Isaiah, Hosea and Amos) that he despised their sacrifices, for they are meaningless without a change in heart. [11]

But it is easy to miss the point by simply studying ancient near east culture. You see Yahweh didn’t want to simply be another god to Israel, or do what the other gods were doing. The other gods acted in mutual agreement they wanted something physical from the people. John Walton reminds us that, “Typically, both parties to a contract, treaty or similar legal agreement could expect to benefit from their commitment. It is not at all clear that the Biblical text wants its readers to believe that Yahweh will receive some benefit from this relationship with the Israelites that he would not otherwise be able to obtain. The text speaks of great benefit awaiting the Israelites for their consistent obedience to their covenantal obligations. For Yahweh’s part, his actions do not appear to be based in self-interest but in a willingness to be gracious and to extend freely his blessing.” [12]

So, what does God get out of it? A relationship with us. Sound underrated? Maybe. But it goes back to the dance of Grace I have written so much about in my series “this is the Way.” The story of the Bible is that for some reason, this is what God desires more than anything and will stop at nothing to come back into a free will love relationship with his created beings. It is incomprehensible to our broken minds. This is the standard of covenant that we are then asked to live out to others.

As you could study covenant to many different levels, what I am really leaning into is the fundamental Biblical theme that God wants to partner with us. In the garden God offers to walk intimately with his treasured possession to reign and rule, keep and cultivate reconciling all of His creation to His glory. That first covenant was quickly broken but it doesn’t stop God from being the way maker. The story of the Bible is God’s plan to not only bring back the intimacy between man and maker in the garden but even surpass it that we might bear His very image, and kingdom kinship completely reconciled and “then some” in a recreated heaven and earth.

This partnership wasn’t merely intended for a husband and wife, although that become the biblical metaphor for such an image, but for every biblical relationship. God’s plan was for all of his relationship to be in covenant together. What does this mean? I guess you will need to wait for part three.

  1. https://www.chaimbentorah.com/2015/11/word-study-his-covenant-%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%aa%d7%95/
  2. IBID
  3. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), 503.
  4. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 136.
  5. Warren Baker and Eugene Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003), 166.
  6. According to a search of the text of the Hebrew Bible in The Scriptures: CD-ROM Resource Edition 1.0.
  7. See how “covenant” is italicized (added by translators) in 1 Samuel 11:2; 20:16; 1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10; Nehemiah 9:38; and Isaiah 57:8.
  8. https://cufi.org/resource/what-does-it-mean-to-cut-a-covenant/
  9. Dr. Will Ryan’s Book, “This is the Way” to covenant discipleship
  10. https://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/10/cutting-covenant-and-when-covenant.html
  11. https://reknew.org/2019/09/why-did-god-require-animal-sacrifice-in-the-old-testament/
  12. https://overviewbible.com/covenant-john-walton/