Tag Archives: calling

The Message, The Method, and The Messenger

Posted by expedition44 on

Few practices have shaped the life of the Church more profoundly than preaching. From the public reading of Torah in ancient Israel to the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel throughout the Roman world, the people of God have always been formed by the spoken Word. Yet despite its centrality, preaching often suffers from a crisis of identity. In some contexts, it has been reduced to theological information transfer. In others, it has become motivational speaking wrapped in biblical language. Still elsewhere, preaching is treated primarily as a platform for personality, charisma, or cultural commentary. The result is that many aspiring preachers learn how to construct sermons before they ever wrestle with the deeper theological question of what preaching actually is or the faithful understanding of the text itself. A biblical theology of proclamation requires a more foundational approach. Before discussing outlines, illustrations, delivery techniques, or sermon structure, one must first ask what the preacher has been entrusted to proclaim. The recovery of faithful homiletics begins not with technique but with theology. It begins with understanding the relationship between the message, the method, and the messenger.

The Priority of the Message

Biblical proclamation begins with the conviction that God speaks. This seemingly simple assertion stands beneath the entire biblical narrative. Scripture is not merely a record of religious experiences or theological reflections; it is the testimony of a God who reveals Himself, enters covenant, and addresses His people. The authority of preaching, therefore, does not derive from the giftedness of the preacher, the expectations of the congregation, or the cultural relevance of the sermon. It derives from the God who has spoken and continues to speak through Scripture by the Holy Spirit.¹

This understanding distinguishes biblical preaching from virtually every other form of communication. The preacher does not stand before the congregation primarily as a lecturer, motivational speaker, storyteller, or religious commentator. Rather, the preacher stands as a steward under authority. The task is not to create a message but to faithfully proclaim a message already given. As Paul exhorts Timothy, the charge is remarkably simple and yet profoundly demanding: “Preach the Word” (2 Tim. 4:2).²

This reality places significant constraints upon the preacher. The sermon cannot be governed primarily by personal preference, cultural trends, political ideology, or popular opinion. Scripture itself must govern the sermon. The preacher is called to submit to the text before proclaiming the text. As Haddon Robinson famously observed, biblical preaching derives both its substance and authority from Scripture rather than from the ingenuity of the communicator.³ For this reason, faithful proclamation requires more than isolated proof texts or devotional reflections. It demands serious engagement with authorial intent, literary structure, historical setting, canonical context, and theological meaning. The biblical text must be allowed to speak on its own terms before it can be applied to contemporary hearers.⁴

From Information to Transformation

One of the persistent temptations within theological education is to confuse explanation with proclamation. Exegesis is indispensable. Careful interpretation matters. Historical and literary context matter. Yet a sermon is not complete simply because a passage has been explained correctly. Throughout Scripture, proclamation consistently presses toward transformation. The reading of Torah under Ezra in Nehemiah 8 did not merely increase knowledge; it produced conviction, worship, repentance, and renewed covenant identity. The preaching ministry of Jesus consistently called for response. The sermons of Acts repeatedly moved listeners toward repentance, faith, obedience, and participation in the life of the Kingdom. Biblical proclamation aims not merely at understanding but at formation.⁵

This movement might be summarized as:

Text → Meaning → Theology → Proclamation → Transformation

Each movement matters. A sermon that skips theological reflection often becomes shallow moralism. A sermon that neglects application becomes an academic lecture. A sermon that focuses exclusively on application without careful interpretation often descends into subjective spirituality detached from the text. Faithful preaching requires movement through each stage in order that hearers may encounter not merely biblical information but the living God who addresses them through Scripture.⁶ This transformational emphasis also explains why preaching cannot be reduced to intellectual persuasion alone. Paul reminds the Corinthians that his proclamation did not rest merely upon “plausible words of wisdom” but upon a demonstration of the Spirit’s power (1 Cor. 2:4). Biblical preaching occupies a unique space where careful study and spiritual dependence converge. The preacher labors diligently with the text while simultaneously depending upon the Holy Spirit to illuminate, convict, heal, and transform.

The Necessity of Method

If the message concerns what is proclaimed, the method concerns how the preacher moves responsibly from text to sermon. Throughout church history, faithful preachers have recognized that Spirit-led proclamation does not eliminate the need for disciplined preparation. Rather, preparation becomes an act of stewardship. The false dichotomy between study and Spirit remains one of the most damaging assumptions in modern preaching culture. Some preachers lean so heavily upon spontaneity that careful exegesis is neglected. Others become so consumed with academic precision that little room remains for pastoral warmth, spiritual discernment, or Spirit-sensitive application. Scripture consistently calls for both discipline and dependence.⁷

A responsible homiletical method begins with observation. Before asking what a text means, the preacher must first learn to see what is actually present within the text itself. Repeated themes, literary structures, key words, narrative movements, and theological tensions all deserve careful attention. Interpretation then seeks to understand the meaning of those observations within their historical, literary, and canonical contexts. Only after this work has been completed can the preacher move toward theological reflection and contemporary application.⁸ This process is particularly important because the Bible contains multiple literary genres, each requiring distinct interpretive sensitivities. Narrative texts function differently than prophetic oracles. Wisdom literature communicates differently than apocalyptic visions. Epistles differ from psalms. Failure to recognize these distinctions often results in misapplication or theological distortion.⁹

Equally important is the identification of the central burden of the text. Every faithful sermon should emerge from the primary theological claim of the passage rather than from a collection of disconnected observations. Bryan Chapell refers to this as the “fallen condition focus,” while Robinson describes it as the “big idea” of the sermon.¹⁰ Whatever terminology one adopts, the principle remains the same: a sermon should move coherently from the text’s central claim toward the response God seeks from His people. The goal of method, therefore, is not to create rigid formulas but to provide a faithful pathway from biblical text to pastoral proclamation.

The Messenger and the Embodied Word

Perhaps the most neglected dimension of homiletics in contemporary ministry is the formation of the messenger. Modern conversations about preaching often focus almost exclusively upon content or communication techniques. Yet Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that proclamation flows through a person whose life either reinforces or undermines the message being proclaimed.

The New Testament consistently holds life and doctrine together. Paul instructs Timothy to “watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Tim. 4:16). Peter exhorts elders to shepherd willingly and honorably (1 Pet. 5:1–4). James warns that teachers will be judged more strictly (Jas. 3:1). These passages reveal a sobering truth: the preacher cannot be separated from the proclamation.¹¹ This does not mean that preachers must achieve perfection before they are qualified to speak. Scripture itself presents deeply flawed leaders such as Moses, David, Peter, and Paul. Yet it does mean that character formation matters. Holiness matters. Humility matters. Integrity matters. Emotional health matters. The messenger does not create the authority of the message, but the messenger can certainly obscure it.

In many respects, contemporary ministry culture often rewards giftedness more quickly than character. Charisma can attract attention. Communication skills can generate influence. Yet Scripture consistently prioritizes faithfulness over platform. The greatest dangers facing preachers are not merely theological error but pride, hypocrisy, manipulation, performance identity, and the temptation to use ministry for self-exaltation rather than service.¹² This is why spiritual formation must remain central to homiletical training. Prayer is not a supplement to sermon preparation; it is part of sermon preparation. Dependence upon the Holy Spirit is not an optional charismatic addition to preaching; it belongs to the very nature of biblical proclamation. The preacher is called not merely to explain the Word but to embody its transforming power through a life increasingly conformed to Christ.

A Holistic Vision for Biblical Proclamation

The healthiest vision of preaching emerges when the message, the method, and the messenger remain properly integrated. When the message is emphasized without attention to method, sermons often become disorganized or inaccessible. When method is emphasized without theological depth, preaching becomes technique-driven. When both message and method are present without spiritual formation, preaching risks becoming professionally competent yet spiritually hollow.

The biblical vision is far richer.

The message must remain governed by Scripture and centered upon Christ. The method must move responsibly from text to proclamation through careful interpretation and pastoral application. The messenger must continually submit to the transforming work of the Holy Spirit so that life and doctrine remain joined together. Only when these three dimensions converge does preaching become what it was always intended to be: a sacred act of stewardship through which God addresses His people, forms disciples, builds His Church, and advances His Kingdom.

THINKTANK

One additional practice that deserves far more attention in modern preaching is the role of community in sermon formation. While the final responsibility of proclamation rests with the preacher, the healthiest sermons are often shaped long before the preacher steps into the pulpit. Too many ministers prepare in isolation when God has already surrounded them with gifted people within the Body of Christ. Pastors, elders, teachers, musicians, creatives, counselors, intercessors, and ministry leaders each bring unique perspectives that can enrich the development of a message.

In many ministry contexts, sermon preparation benefits from functioning more like a think tank than a solitary exercise. Weeks before a message is delivered, trusted voices can help identify theological tensions, pastoral concerns, cultural blind spots, practical applications, and potential red flags. Others may contribute research, historical insights, illustrations, testimonies, or ministry implications that the primary communicator might otherwise overlook. Worship leaders often help identify themes that can be reinforced through music. Creative teams can envision visual elements and storytelling opportunities. Pastoral teams can anticipate how different groups within the congregation may hear and respond to the message. This collaborative process not only strengthens the sermon itself but also creates greater unity across the ministries of the church.

Such collaboration reflects a deeply biblical vision of the Church. Paul reminds us that the Body consists of many members, each contributing distinct gifts for the common good. The preacher remains responsible for stewarding the final message, yet wisdom often emerges through the collective discernment of Spirit-filled believers working together. In this sense, sermon preparation becomes an act of communal discipleship rather than merely an individual task.

When practiced intentionally, this process also allows church leaders to think beyond a single sermon and toward the larger formation of the congregation. Through thoughtful planning, scope and sequence, sermon series development, and long-range discipleship goals, leaders can begin to map how individual messages contribute to the overall spiritual development of the church. Rather than treating each sermon as an isolated event, preaching becomes part of a larger strategy of Kingdom formation, helping people move steadily toward maturity in Christ. In many ways, the most effective preaching ministries are not built on great sermons alone, but on communities of leaders prayerfully discerning together what God is saying to His people and how best to shepherd them toward faithful obedience.

Conclusion: Bearing the Weight and Wonder of the Call

At the end of the day, homiletics is not ultimately about sermons. It is about people.

It is about men and women made in the image of God who are longing for hope, truth, healing, direction, reconciliation, purpose, and life. It is about weary souls carrying burdens they cannot articulate, families navigating hardship, prodigals searching for home, disciples seeking maturity, and communities longing to encounter the living Christ. Every week, those people gather before the people entrusted with the ministry of proclamation, and the question remains: will they merely hear a speech, or will they encounter the Word of God? That is the sacred privilege and responsibility of the preacher.

The calling to preach has never been about building platforms, gathering followers, crafting polished presentations, or becoming a religious personality. The preacher is first and foremost a steward. We are entrusted with something that does not belong to us. The message is His. The people are His. The Church is His. The Kingdom is His. Our task is simply to handle the Word faithfully, proclaim it courageously, embody it authentically, and leave the results in the hands of the Holy Spirit.

This is why the message matters. This is why the method matters. This is why the messenger matters.

The message must remain anchored in Scripture because people need more than our opinions. They need a Word from God. The method matters because faithful stewardship requires diligence, discipline, and careful handling of the text. The messenger matters because people are not merely listening to what we say; they are observing the life through which the message is being delivered. Long after many sermons are forgotten, people will often remember whether they encountered a humble servant of Christ whose life reflected the Gospel being proclaimed. For those called to preach, teach, shepherd, disciple, and lead, the challenge is not simply to become better communicators. The challenge is to become people who dwell deeply with Christ. Fruitfulness in ministry has always flowed from abiding before it flows from activity. Before Jesus sent His disciples into the world, He first called them to be with Him. Before there was proclamation, there was formation. Before there was ministry, there was relationship.

The Church does not ultimately need more celebrities, influencers, performers, or experts. The Church needs faithful servants who know the Scriptures, hear the voice of the Spirit, love people deeply, and are willing to spend their lives helping others follow Jesus. It needs shepherds who can handle truth with conviction and people with tenderness. It needs proclaimers who can move responsibly from text to transformation and who understand that every sermon is an opportunity to participate in God’s ongoing work of redemption. If God has entrusted you with this calling, receive it with humility, but also with confidence. The same Spirit who inspired the Word still empowers its proclamation. The same Christ who commissioned His disciples still builds His Church. The same God who called prophets, apostles, pastors, teachers, and evangelists continues to raise up laborers for His harvest field.

So study diligently. Pray fervently. Shepherd faithfully. Preach courageously. Love deeply. Remain teachable. Stay near to Christ. And never forget that the goal is not simply to preach sermons, but to make disciples who embody the life and mission of the Kingdom.

May your message be biblical. May your method be faithful. May your life reflect the Gospel you proclaim.

And may the Lord use your words, your witness, and your obedience to bear much fruit for the glory of Christ and the advancement of His Kingdom.

Written with Dr. Steve Cassell

Endnotes

  1. John Stott, Between Two Worlds (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 89.
  2. Thomas G. Long, The Witness of Preaching, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016), 13.
  3. Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 21.
  4. Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 27.
  5. Sidney Greidanus, The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 11.
  6. Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 43.
  7. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 95.
  8. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 31.
  9. Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of Scripture, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 19.
  10. Robinson, Biblical Preaching, 35; Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching, 51.
  11. Timothy Keller, Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Viking, 2015), 293.
  12. Eugene H. Peterson, The Contemplative Pastor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 7.

Is Israel Still God’s Chosen People? Israel, Covenant Purpose, and Fulfillment in Jesus

Posted by expedition44 on

Election, Covenant Identity, and the Fulfillment of Israel’s Calling in Christ

Few theological questions in modern Christianity generate more confusion than whether ethnic Israel remains “God’s chosen people” in an exclusive covenantal sense. The discussion is often driven less by close exegesis and more by inherited systems, political assumptions, end-times speculation, or reactionary responses to those systems. Some approach the issue through modern nationalism, others through replacement theology, while still others through popular prophecy models that flatten the complexity of Scripture into a rigid timeline. Yet the biblical question is far richer than any of those categories allow.

The central problem is that many readers assume the phrase chosen people carries the same meaning in every era of redemptive history. In practice, Scripture uses election language in multiple ways: for vocation, covenant privilege, priestly service, historical purpose, remnant faithfulness, messianic fulfillment, and eschatological inheritance. If those categories are collapsed into one simplistic definition, the discussion becomes distorted from the outset. Israel was indeed chosen by God, but the nature of that election must be defined by Scripture itself rather than by later theological slogans.

When the biblical canon is read carefully, a clear movement emerges. Israel is elected through Abrahamic promise, formed as a covenant nation, judged through prophetic critique, restored through messianic hope, and ultimately reconstituted around Jesus the Messiah. The New Testament does not discard Israel, nor does it preserve covenant identity as though Christ changed nothing. Rather, it presents Jesus as the faithful Israelite who fulfills Israel’s vocation and gathers Jews and Gentiles alike into one renewed people of God.¹

Election in the Hebrew Bible Was Primarily Vocational

The first major texts concerning Israel’s chosenness reveal that election was never rooted in ethnic superiority. Deuteronomy 7:6–8 declares that Israel was chosen not because of size, power, or merit, but because Yahweh loved them and remained faithful to the oath sworn to their fathers. The initiative is entirely divine. Israel is not selected because she is impressive, but because God is gracious and covenantally faithful.² Exodus 19:5–6 clarifies the purpose of this election. Israel is called Yahweh’s treasured possession and “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This priestly language is crucial. Priests do not exist for themselves. They mediate sacred presence, preserve holiness, instruct others, and stand representatively between God and humanity. Israel’s election, therefore, is not narcissistic privilege but priestly vocation. They are chosen for service, witness, and mediation among the nations.³ This priestly framework is inseparable from the Abrahamic promise in Genesis 12:3, where Abraham is blessed so that all the families of the earth may be blessed through him. Israel’s election is thus outward-facing from the beginning. Christopher Wright rightly observes that the election of Abraham and Israel is the chosen means through which God intends universal blessing, not an end in itself.⁴ In Ancient Near Eastern context, nations commonly linked themselves to territorial deities who functioned as patrons of a particular land or people group. Israel’s Scriptures are distinctive because Yahweh chooses one nation while simultaneously claiming sovereignty over all nations. Israel’s role is not to monopolize God, but to reveal Him.⁵ This distinction matters profoundly. Election is missional before it is political.

Israel’s Calling Included Temple and Adamic Dimensions

Israel’s vocation also carries temple imagery and echoes humanity’s original calling in Eden. A growing number of scholars have recognized that Eden is portrayed in priestly and sanctuary terms, with Adam functioning as a guardian-servant in sacred space.⁶ If Adam represents humanity’s primal vocation to image God within creation, Israel may be viewed corporately as a renewed Adamic people placed in covenant land to display divine kingship before the nations. The land promise itself should therefore be understood theologically, not merely geographically. Land in the Old Testament signifies ordered space where covenant life flourishes under God’s rule. Sabbath, justice, mercy, worship, and holiness are meant to characterize life there. Exile, then, is not simply displacement from property. It is the loss of sacred order, vocation, and covenant nearness.⁷ This perspective guards against reducing chosenness to ethnicity or territory. Israel’s identity was always tied to covenant fidelity, worship, justice, and witness. Possessing land without embodying the covenant never fulfilled the purpose of election.

The Prophets Rejected Any Notion of Automatic Privilege

The prophets consistently dismantled the assumption that chosenness guaranteed divine favor irrespective of obedience. Amos 3:2 offers perhaps the clearest summary: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” Election increases accountability. Covenant intimacy heightens responsibility.⁸ Jeremiah rebukes those who chant “the temple of the LORD” as though sacred structures could shield covenant rebellion. Isaiah denounces worship divorced from justice and mercy. Ezekiel portrays exile as the inevitable result of defiling sanctuary and profaning God’s name among the nations. Hosea uses marital imagery to reveal relational betrayal. The prophetic witness is remarkably unified on this point: election without faithfulness invites judgment rather than security.⁹ This matters for modern debates. If chosenness meant permanent covenant standing regardless of response, the exile would be inexplicable. Instead, the Old Testament itself teaches that covenant privilege can be forfeited historically through persistent unbelief and rebellion. Yet the prophets also proclaim hope. They speak of circumcised hearts, Spirit renewal, a new covenant, a faithful servant, and a restored people transformed from within. The future of Israel is never merely political recovery. It is covenant renewal through divine intervention.¹⁰

Jesus as the Faithful Israelite

The New Testament announces that this prophetic hope finds fulfillment in Jesus. He is not simply an Israelite within Israel. He is the representative Israelite who embodies Israel’s calling and succeeds where the nation failed. Matthew’s Gospel deliberately narrates Jesus through Israel’s story. He comes out of Egypt, passes through water, enters the wilderness, and is tested before ascending a mountain to teach covenant righteousness. These are not random parallels. They are theological claims. Where Israel grumbled in the wilderness, Jesus remains obedient. Where Adam succumbed to temptation, Jesus resists.¹¹ Jesus also assumes symbolic roles once associated with Israel. He is the true vine in contrast to the failed vineyard imagery of Isaiah 5. He identifies himself as the true temple, the locus of divine presence. He is the Davidic king, the servant of the Lord, and the beloved Son. N. T. Wright has argued persuasively that Jesus saw himself as summing up Israel’s destiny in his own vocation.¹² This means that election becomes concentrated in the Messiah. To belong to the chosen one is to share in the blessings and inheritance attached to him.

The People of God Reconstituted Around Christ

Because Jesus fulfills Israel’s vocation, the New Testament speaks of a renewed covenant people defined by union with him rather than by genealogy alone. This is why Peter can apply Sinai language to believers and call them a chosen race, royal priesthood, and holy nation. He is not stealing Israel’s story. He is declaring that Israel’s priestly purpose has reached fulfillment in the Messiah and now embraces all who belong to him.¹³ Paul develops the same reality in Ephesians 2. Gentiles who were once far off are brought near through Christ. Hostility is broken down. One new humanity is formed. Temple language then reappears as believers together become a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. The old dividing lines no longer define covenant membership. This is neither simplistic replacement theology nor a denial of Israel’s historical role. It is fulfillment theology. What began in Abraham expands through the Messiah into a multinational family.

Paul’s Argument in Romans and Galatians

Paul’s statements are decisive for the present question. Romans 9:6 says, “For not all those from Israel are Israel.” This distinction between ethnic Israel and covenant Israel did not begin with Paul. It runs through the Old Testament itself in the language of remnant, promise, and faithful seed. Isaac rather than Ishmael, Jacob rather than Esau, the faithful minority rather than the rebellious majority. Genealogy alone never exhausted covenant identity.¹⁴ Romans 2:28–29 presses further by describing true Jewishness in terms of inward transformation by the Spirit rather than merely outward markers. Paul is not erasing ethnicity. He is insisting that covenant membership cannot be reduced to fleshly descent. Galatians 3 reaches its climax when Paul says that those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise. This would have been astonishing in the first-century world. Gentiles inherit Abrahamic blessing not by becoming ethnic Jews, but by union with the Messiah who is himself the promised seed.¹⁵

Romans 11 and the Future of Israel

Romans 11 must also be read carefully. Paul uses the image of one olive tree. Some natural branches are broken off through unbelief. Wild branches are grafted in through faith. Natural branches may be grafted in again if they do not remain in unbelief. The imagery is singular. There are not two covenant trees with parallel destinies. There is one people rooted in patriarchal promise and sustained through faith.¹⁶ When Paul says “all Israel will be saved,” interpreters differ on the precise referent. Some see a future large-scale turning of Jewish people to Christ. Others understand the phrase corporately of the full people of God. Others emphasize the total redeemed remnant across history. Yet whatever interpretive option one prefers, Paul nowhere imagines salvation apart from Christ. Romans 10 has already centered salvation in confession of Jesus as Lord. Romans 11 must be read in continuity with that gospel logic, not against it.¹⁷ A wise conclusion is that Paul expects ongoing divine mercy toward Jewish people and perhaps future widespread turning, but always through the same Messiah in whom Gentiles also stand.

The Modern State of Israel and Biblical Israel Are Not Identical Categories

One of the most common interpretive errors today is the direct equation of biblical Israel with the modern nation-state established in 1948. These categories overlap historically but are not theologically identical. Biblical Israel was a covenant people ordered around Torah, temple, sacrifice, priesthood, and prophetic vocation. The modern state is a contemporary political nation functioning within secular international frameworks and containing wide internal diversity of belief and practice.¹⁸ Christians may care deeply about Jewish security, oppose antisemitism, seek justice for Palestinians, and pray for peace in the land without granting automatic theological legitimacy to every state policy. Scripture requires more nuance than partisan slogans.

So Is Israel Still God’s Chosen People?

The answer depends entirely on how the phrase is defined. If one means that Israel was historically elected as the people through whom came covenant, Torah, prophets, and Messiah, the answer is certainly yes. Paul explicitly affirms these privileges in Romans 9:4–5. If one means that every ethnic descendant possesses covenant standing irrespective of response to Christ, the New Testament answer is no. If one means that God’s mercy and redemptive concern for Jewish people remains active, the answer is yes. If one means that one ethnic nation now exists as the exclusive people of God over against the multinational body of Christ, the answer is no. The deepest Christian answer is that Jesus is the chosen one, faithful Israel in person, and all who belong to him share in that election.

Conclusion

When all of Scripture is allowed to speak in its fullness, the question is not whether God discarded Israel or whether one modern nation now carries automatic covenant status. The deeper question is how the faithfulness of God reaches its intended goal. The biblical answer is that God has always been faithful to His promises, and those promises find their yes and amen in Jesus Christ. The Lord did not abandon His covenant purposes. He brought them to maturity. Israel’s story matters because it is our story of grace. Through Israel came the patriarchs, the prophets, the Scriptures, the temple patterns, the covenants, and ultimately the Messiah himself. The church must never treat Israel with arrogance, mockery, or triumphalism. Paul warns Gentile believers in Romans 11 not to boast against the natural branches. We stand by mercy, not superiority. Every Christian should carry humility when speaking of Israel, because salvation history was carried forward through a people chosen to bear the weight of promise until Christ appeared. Yet the New Testament also refuses to let us place our confidence in ancestry, ethnicity, politics, or geography. The temptation in every generation is to trust visible markers. Some trusted circumcision. Some trusted the temple. Some trusted the land. Some trusted national identity. We are no different. Many today trust denominational labels, political movements, church brands, charismatic personalities, or cultural Christianity. But the gospel continually calls us back to the same truth: covenant life is found primarily in Christ.

This means the modern church must hear the prophetic warning as much as ancient Israel did. It is possible to carry sacred language while neglecting sacred obedience. It is possible to defend biblical symbols while lacking biblical love. It is possible to speak of chosenness while living without holiness.

Israel’s failures are preserved in Scripture not to shame them, but to disciple us.

Their story warns every congregation that privilege without faithfulness leads to dryness, pride, and judgment. At the same time, Israel’s story also gives hope to every weary believer. God is patient with stumbling people. He restores the broken. He keeps covenant when humans fail covenant. He brings life out of exile, resurrection out of graves, and mercy out of rebellion. The same God who remained faithful through centuries of Israel’s weakness remains faithful to His church today. If He did not abandon them in their discipline, He will not abandon us in ours. The church therefore should not ask, “Which nation is most favored?” but “Are we abiding in the Messiah?” The New Testament redirects our attention from territorial obsession to spiritual formation, from speculation to discipleship, from charts to character, from political fear to kingdom witness. Jesus did not commission the church to decode headlines. He commissioned the church to make disciples, love enemies, preach repentance, care for the poor, embody holiness, and announce the reign of God.

This also reshapes how we view the people around us. Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, insider and outsider, religious and skeptical alike are all invited into the same covenant mercy through Christ. The dividing walls humanity builds are torn down at the cross. The church dishonors the gospel whenever it rebuilds walls Jesus died to remove. Our calling is not to compete over status, but to become one new humanity marked by reconciliation. For the modern church, perhaps the most urgent lesson is this: being near sacred things is not the same as being surrendered to God. One may attend church weekly, know Christian vocabulary, defend doctrines online, and still remain spiritually distant. Ancient Israel often possessed the symbols while neglecting the substance. The church can do the same. We can have platforms without prayer, worship services without wonder, sermons without repentance, and activity without abiding life. The call of Christ is deeper. He desires a people whose hearts are circumcised by the Spirit, whose love is genuine, whose holiness is joyful, and whose witness is radiant. So is Israel still God’s chosen people? In one sense, Israel remains forever honored in the story of redemption. In another sense, the chosen people of God are now (and always have been) those who belong to Yahweh and are fulfilled in Christ. The family has widened. The invitation has gone global. The promises have flowered beyond their earlier borders. What began in Abraham now reaches to every tribe and tongue through Jesus Christ. That has always been the plan, to reconcile the lost world back to Yahweh.

Therefore let the church walk humbly, love deeply, and remain rooted in grace. Let us bless the Jewish people, reject every form of antisemitism, pray for peace in the land, and long for all peoples to know their Messiah. Let us also examine ourselves, lest we celebrate biblical history while neglecting present obedience. In the end, the greatest question is not whether Israel was chosen. The greatest question is whether we ourselves are living as a chosen people now: holy, compassionate, faithful, priestly, and fully surrendered to the Lord who gathers the nations into one family.

Endnotes

  1. G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 657–63.
  2. J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2002), 156–59.
  3. Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 168–70.
  4. Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 201–7.
  5. John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 289–94.
  6. G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004), 66–80.
  7. T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 34–49.
  8. Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 338–40.
  9. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 736–45.
  10. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., The Promise-Plan of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 227–39.
  11. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 74–92.
  12. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 390–404.
  13. Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 154–61.
  14. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 560–69.
  15. Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 245–52.
  16. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 613–26.
  17. Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 274–82.
  18. Gary M. Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise? (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2003), 35–67.

Taking the name of the Lord in vain Ex 20:7

Posted by expedition44 on

Exodus 20:7 tells us not to use God’s name in vain, this is the third commandment that is given to the nation of Israel. It says, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” God’s people are His image-bearers. Most people understand this as simply swearing, and it certainly can mean that, but it means significantly more than that.1

The Hebrew word we translate as “vain” (שָׁוְא – shav’) and often is translated as falsely, lie, lying, vain, vanity. Think about the depth of that for a minute. Shav {shav}; comes from the same root as the Hebrew word show’ שׁוֹא in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) or morally (especially guile); figuratively idolatry (as false, subjective), uselessness (as deceptive, objective; also adverbially, in vain).2 In other words, you are giving up your commission as an ambassador of GOOD – TOV – GOD giving it up for the opposite, to be an agent of destruction, idolatry, or deception.

I have often preached on this in depth. You can download the message here.

In ancient culture, your name meant something. It had value; it told others who you were. And the same is true with the name of God. His name has meaning and power. It’s holy. Therefore, we shouldn’t use it as if it’s empty, hollow, worthless, or in vain. 

From the earliest biblical writings (e.g., Genesis, Exodus), God’s name (often represented as YHWH, sometimes transliterated “Yahweh”) has been profoundly revered. Archaeological finds from the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (which date from roughly 200 BC to AD 70) show extreme care taken by scribes when writing God’s name, indicating the reverence the ancient Hebrews held.3

Misconceptions About “Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain”

Misunderstandings often occur when people assume the third commandment merely prohibits using God’s name as an expletive. While profanity is a blatant violation, there are other forms of misuse:

1. Swearing Falsely: Invoking God’s name to lend credibility to a lie or breaking an oath that was made in His name.

2. Empty Rituals: Reciting God’s name thoughtlessly through rote repetition or superstition, stripping it of genuine reverence.

3. Hypocrisy: Claiming to represent God-in speech, action, or attitude-while behaving in a way that contradicts His character and Word.

These violations flow from failing to acknowledge Scripture’s teaching that our speech should be truthful, pure, and honoring to the Lord (cf. Ephesians 4:29; James 5:12).

Broader Implications in Scripture

In the Old Testament, God’s name symbolizes His covenant presence among His people. The prophet Malachi delivers a strong rebuke to priests for not honoring God’s name (Malachi 1:6-14), showing divine displeasure toward leaders who degrade His name by their actions.4

In the New Testament, the principle deepens. Jesus teaches us to pray, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name” (Matthew 6:9). This “hallowing” is the observation of God’s holiness; it is the polar opposite of treating His name in vain.

Proper Use of the Lord’s Name

Rather than merely avoiding sin, believers are to cultivate a holy approach to God’s name:

1. Worship and Awe: Scripture exemplifies worshipers who honor God’s name in praise (Psalm 29:2: “Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His name…”).

2. Prayer: Jesus’ model prayer begins with magnifying God’s name (Matthew 6:9).

3. Evangelism and Testimony: Speaking of God’s name reverently when sharing faith with others, representing God’s character faithfully.

When we use God’s name in prayer, worship, or conversation, we affirm His nature and maintain the holiness that sets Him apart from all creation.

Connection to Christ and Salvation

The New Testament teaches that Jesus is the fullness of God’s revelation. His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) affirms all He taught, including the necessity of honoring God’s name. Indeed, the apostles proclaim that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

This underscores the idea that God’s name and His power to save are inextricably linked. If we believe that God became flesh in Jesus Christ, rose from the dead, and offers salvation, then how we address and regard His name is vitally important. It is more than mere words; it is our lifeline.

Conclusion

Taking the Lord’s name in vain encompasses every misuse or trivialization of the divine name-whether through profanity, false oaths, or hollow rituals. The commandment, rooted in the holiness of God’s name, remains relevant both in ancient and modern contexts.

From historical manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls to modern theological research, the evidence consistently points to the enormous weight the biblical writers placed on God’s name. The consistent accuracy and transmission of these passages through centuries underscores how believers have guardrailed the truth about such matters. Respecting and revering that name is integral to honoring who God truly is.

For those within the faith, this observance also becomes a testimony of devotion. For those investigating Scripture’s claims, seeing how God’s name is treated with the utmost seriousness offers insight into the Bible’s broader moral and theological framework.

Indeed, “the name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous run to it and are safe” (Proverbs 18:10). Let it ever be used with reverence and awe.5

  1. Kitz, Anne Marie (2019). “The Verb *yahway”. Journal of Biblical Literature. 138 (1): 39–62. ↩︎
  2. Wurthwein, Ernst; Fischer, Alexander Achilles (2014). The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans. p. 264. ISBN 978-0-8028-6680-6.  ↩︎
  3. Wilkinson, Robert J. (2015). Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God – From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-28817-1 ↩︎
  4. Kurtz, Johann Heinrich (1859). History of the Old Covenant. Translated by Edersheim, A. p. 214. ↩︎
  5. The Bible Hub ↩︎

Is Israel Still God’s Chosen people?

Posted by expedition44 on

Q:  I have a question regarding Israel. Would Israelites still be considered God’s chosen people or would that have changed with Jesus’s atoning works? 

Yes, Israel was (and is) called God’s chosen people in Scripture—but what that means and how we understand it after Jesus is really important to clarify.

When God called Israel His “chosen people” in the Old Testament, it wasn’t primarily a statement about salvation. Rather, Israel was chosen (commissioned) for a vocation—to be a light to the nations (see Exodus 19:5–6; Deuteronomy 7:6; Isaiah 49:6). (You might see this as a regaining of the nations if you follow a Deuteronomy 32 worldview.) God gave them the Law (Torah), the covenants, and the promises, not as an end in themselves, but so that through them, the nations of the world would come to know and worship Yahweh. Paul puts it like this in Romans 3:2—that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. In a sense, this was the calling of Adam and Eve and when they fall short, God commissions Israel in the same calling, nation that would be called commissioned as a holy royal priesthood to represent Yahweh to the rest of the fallen world.

But Israel consistently struggled to live out this calling. From nearly the beginning of the story the nation failed to honor Yahweh (golden calf incident) and instead of the entire nation (all 12 tribes) representing the Lord as priests, God adapted the plan and then called just the Levites to be His representatives as priests first to Israel in hopes of then commissioning the entire nation of Israel to the original plan and act as ambassadors of Yahweh. The Old Testament tells a story of covenant, failure, judgment, and hope for restoration. Israel continued to falter. They gave up their theocracy of one God – Yahweh to choose to be led by an earthly king. They drifted farther and farther from the plan until God finally hands them over to their own demise, the exile was a key turning point. Even after the return of the exile to Jerusalem, most scholars believe Israel never returned to the LORD. God longed for Israel to return to the true redemption and the coming of God’s kingdom. Unfortunately, Israel continued to fall short and not seem to live out their calling or commissioning.

Jesus enters the narrative with a similar mission. He doesn’t reject Israel’s story—He steps into it. He comes first to “the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24), calling them back to their original vocation. He chooses twelve disciples, clearly symbolizing a reconstitution of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is not incidental—it’s Jesus claiming to be the one who restores and redefines Israel around Himself.

And here’s the key: Jesus is the faithful Israelite. He does what Israel failed to do. He keeps the covenant perfectly, walks in radical obedience, and fulfills Israel’s mission. He is the true Israel (see Matthew 2:15 where Hosea’s words originally spoken about Israel—”out of Egypt I called my son”—are applied to Jesus).

This is why Paul will later say in Galatians 3:16 that the promises were given not to “seeds” (plural) but to one “seed,” who is Christ. In other words, the inheritance of Israel is fulfilled in Jesus—and only those who are “in Him” share in that inheritance. That phrase—”in Christ”—is the dominant identity marker for believers in the New Testament. If Jesus is the true Israel, then those united to Him (Jew or Gentile) are the true people of God.

This point becomes even clearer when we revisit God’s original promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” This statement is often lifted out of its covenantal context and applied to modern nations or political support for Israel. However, the Hebrew grammar and narrative context show that the promise was made to Abram himself (the singular “you” in Hebrew, ʾotkha), not to a future geopolitical nation. God’s intention was not to privilege one ethnic group above all others but to initiate a redemptive mission through one man and his descendants—a mission that would culminate in Christ. The blessing is vocational, not nationalistic. Abram is chosen in order to be a blessing, that through him “all the families of the earth will be blessed.”

The apostle Paul interprets this precisely in Galatians 3:16, identifying the “seed” (zeraʿ) of Abraham as Christ Himself. This means that the covenant promise—“I will bless those who bless you”—finds its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus. The “you” now applies to Abraham’s true heir, the Messiah. Those who bless Him—who honor, trust, and align themselves with Jesus—receive the blessing of God; those who reject Him cut themselves off from that blessing. In this way, the Abrahamic covenant points forward to Christ as the locus of divine favor. To bless Abraham’s seed is to embrace the redemptive mission of God revealed in Jesus, and through faith in Him, we become participants in that same blessing.

Paul says Abraham was justified before circumcision (Rom. 4), showing that faith, not ethnicity, is the marker of God’s covenant people. He adds in Romans 2:28–29 that a true Jew is one inwardly, whose heart is circumcised by the Spirit. And in Galatians 3:28 he writes: “There is neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Ephesians 2 expands this beautifully. Paul says that Jesus has broken down the dividing wall and made one new humanity—no longer Jew and Gentile, but one body. Peter echoes this in 1 Peter 2, where he applies all the covenant titles once reserved for Israel (royal priesthood, holy nation, people of God) to the church made up of both Jews and Gentiles.

Paul also uses the metaphor of an olive tree in Romans 11: some natural branches (ethnic Israelites) were broken off because of unbelief, and wild branches (Gentiles) were grafted in. But it’s one tree. There aren’t two peoples of God. There is one new covenant community—those who are in Christ. It’s not about replacing Israel, but about fulfillment—where Jews and Gentiles together form the one people of God in Christ.

This helps clarify what Paul means in Romans 11:26 when he says, “all Israel will be saved.” We don’t believe he’s referring to a future mass conversion of ethnic Jews or suggesting two separate salvation paths. Rather, he’s speaking of the fullness of God’s people: both believing Jews and Gentiles who are part of the one tree through faith in the Messiah. This fits with Paul’s logic throughout Romans and with his statement in Galatians 6:16 that the church is “the Israel of God.”

God has always worked through covenants—and those covenants are centered on trust and faithfulness, not ethnicity alone. From the beginning, covenant relationship with God required loyal love. Even under the Mosaic covenant, Israel’s inclusion was contingent on obedience and faithfulness to Yahweh (Deut 28). Being born into Israel didn’t guarantee blessing—relationship and trust did. (Israelites were never automatically “saved.”) If there was any sense of salvation in the Old Testament it would be under the same “qualifications” as in the New Testament. What God was asking and promising for the faithful doesn’t change from the Old Covenants to the New Covenant.

The New Testament affirms this. While many modern Jews are physical descendants of Abraham, Paul is clear that physical descent is not enough. In Romans 9:6–8, he writes:

“For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants… it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.”

Paul emphasizes that covenant identity is now grounded in faith—just as it was with Abraham. As he puts it in Galatians 3:7:

“Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.”

So when we speak of the “people of God” today, we are not referring to a physical nation-state or ethnic group. We are speaking of those “in Christ”—those joined to the faithful Israelite, Jesus.

The modern nation-state of Israel is not the covenant people of the Bible. -If this is a new consideration for you, you might consider reading this article. Most of its citizens do not follow the Mosaic covenant, and the majority have rejected Jesus as Messiah. According to the New Testament, that places them outside of the renewed covenant family—not because of their ancestry, but because God’s covenant has always been about faith.

This doesn’t mean God has abandoned ethnic Jews. Paul says in Romans 11 that he hopes some of his fellow Jews will be provoked to faith. And many Messianic Jews (Jewish believers in Jesus) are part of the body of Christ. But the boundary marker is no longer ethnicity or Torah observance—it is faith in Jesus.

All of this leads us to say: the true Israel (or Israelite) is Jesus. And those “in Him,” whether Jew or Gentile, are heirs to the promises, the calling, and the covenant. God is not partial (and never has been, even with Israel as many gentiles were welcome to join them, a mixed multitude – Hebrew and gentile – left Egypt in the Exodus becoming “Israel”, and some even found themselves in the lineage of Christ Himself) —He welcomes all who come to Him through Christ.

We also need to think about our family in Christ as those that are allegiant to the New Covenant calling rather than those that are nationalistically / inter-nationalistically aligned with groups that subtly “claim to be allied with God” but are not living out the Way of Jesus or bearing fruit for the Kingdom of Christ. There is only one kingdom of Christ, and you can’t serve two masters. For generations many have claimed to be part of Israel or want to be somehow grafted into salvation but haven’t followed the devotion that God has desired and look nothing like Jesus or act in a way worthy of bearing His image. Jesus seemed to paint this picture vividly and make this very clear in the sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

This is not replacement theology.1 God has not rejected Israel and replaced her with or even outside of the church. Rather, the church is the fulfillment of Israel’s story (and Adam and Eve’s story for that matter) —expanded to include all nations through union with Jesus, the faithful Israelite, this was the plan of redemption that “all nations”, or everyone was offerred from the beginning. The promises of God have not been scrapped or reassigned; they find their “yes and amen” in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). The covenant people of God have always been marked by faith and loyalty to Him—and in the new covenant, that means allegiance and devotion to Yahweh through Jesus accepting and claiming that victory and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit as a sign of the holy royal priesthood. Jew and Gentile together form the one new man, the reconstituted people of God.

written by Will Ryan Th.D. and Matt Mouzakis Th.D.

  1. Replacement theology, doctrine holding that Christians have replaced the Jewish people as the chosen people of God or as the heirs of the divine-human covenant described in the Hebrew Bible. The theology is also referred to as supersessionism, in which Christianity is thought to have superseded Judaism. It is closely related to fulfillment theology, which holds that Christianity has fulfilled the divine promises signaled in the Hebrew Bible. These ideas appear to be suggested in some of the earliest Christian texts, such as writings of St. Paul the Apostle, and subsequent Christian theologians have strengthened the opposition of Judaism and Christianity in ways that have informed relations between Christians and Jews. In the 20th century many Christian theologians and even church doctrines replaced replacement theology with more-nuanced or inclusive models that support more-amicable interreligious relations.

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