Moses, the Kenites, and the Formation of Israel’s Earliest Faith

Posted by expedition44 on February 19, 2026

Introduction

The wilderness traditions of Moses are often read as a story of isolation—forty years in obscurity before the divine call. Yet the biblical text itself refuses such a solitary picture. Moses’ exile in Midian is embedded in a network of kinship, priesthood, and tribal alliances centered on a people known as the Kenites. Their presence lingers quietly but persistently throughout the Pentateuch and into the historical books, raising a question that has become increasingly difficult to ignore: to what extent did Israel’s earliest encounter with Yahweh occur within the social and religious world of the Kenites and Midianites?

The purpose of this study is not to advance a simplistic version of the so-called “Kenite hypothesis,” nor to diminish the distinctiveness of Israel’s covenantal revelation, but to situate Moses’ wilderness experience within its Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) social and religious environment. When this context is taken seriously—together with the linguistic texture of the Hebrew text and the witness of extra-biblical sources—a more textured portrait emerges: Moses as a liminal figure formed at the intersection of Egyptian royal culture and Kenite priestly wilderness tradition, and Israel as a people whose earliest articulation of Yahweh-faith was shaped, at least in part, within that southern world.

Exile, Marriage, and Covenant Incorporation

The narrative of Exodus 2 presents Moses as a fugitive who finds refuge in Midian, where he is welcomed into the household of a priestly figure identified variously as Reuel, Jethro, or Hobab. The text’s multiplicity of names has generated no small amount of discussion, but before turning to those issues it is worth observing the basic social structure at work. In the ANE, asylum was rarely granted to unattached individuals; it was secured through incorporation into a household or clan, often by marriage. Moses’ union with Zipporah therefore functions as a covenantal incorporation into a priestly lineage rather than a mere romantic development. His naming of his son Gershom—“I have been a sojourner there”—captures the liminal legal status of a ger, a resident alien under the protection of a host clan.¹

Such arrangements are well attested in comparative ANE materials, where kinship terminology often serves as a vehicle for treaty relationships. The language of “father,” “brother,” and “son” in Hittite and Mari texts frequently marks political alliance rather than strict biological descent.² Within this framework, Moses’ relationship to Jethro/Hobab should be read not only as familial but also as covenantal and diplomatic, binding Moses—and eventually Israel—to a southern nomadic network.

Kenite and Midianite: Layers of Identity in the Southern Levant

The biblical tradition terminology alternates between describing Moses’ in-laws as Midianites (Exod 3:1; Num 10:29) and as Kenites (Judg 1:16; 4:11). Rather than forcing a rigid distinction, most modern scholarship understands these terms as overlapping identity markers. The Kenites appear to have been a clan or subgroup associated with the broader Midianite confederation, inhabiting the Negev and the Transjordanian south.³

Such fluidity is characteristic of nomadic and semi-nomadic societies in the Late Bronze and Iron Age Levant, where tribal identity was multi-layered—geographical, genealogical, and occupational. Egyptian New Kingdom texts refer to nomadic groups called the Shasu, some of whom are designated “Shasu of Yhw,” locating a group bearing the divine name Yhw in precisely the southern region (Edom/Midian) associated with the Kenites.⁴ While the precise relationship between these Shasu groups and the biblical Kenites remains debated, the geographic convergence is striking and provides a plausible extra-biblical backdrop for early Yahwistic devotion in the south.

Genealogy, Language, and the Problem of “Father-in-Law”

The identity of Moses’ father-in-law is further complicated by the Hebrew terminology itself. The consonantal Hebrew root חתן (ḥtn) is semantically flexible and can denote a range of affinal relationships—“father-in-law,” “son-in-law,” or more broadly “in-law/relative by marriage.” The distinction between ḥōtēn (traditionally “father-in-law”) and ḥātān (“bridegroom/son-in-law”) is supplied by later vocalization and is not present in the earliest consonantal text. This ambiguity is not merely theoretical; it directly affects how we read several key passages.

For example, Exodus 3:1 introduces Jethro as:

“Moses was keeping the flock of Jethro his ḥōtēn, the priest of Midian.”

Here the Masoretic pointing reads ḥōtēn (“father-in-law”), but the consonantal text permits the broader sense “relative by marriage.” The same form appears again in Exodus 4:18 and Exodus 18:1, where Jethro is consistently identified as Moses’ ḥōtēn.

However, Numbers 10:29 complicates matters. There we read:

“Moses said to Hobab son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ ḥōtēn…”

If the Masoretic pointing is followed, Hobab is identified as Moses’ father-in-law, yet Exodus 2:18 and 3:1 have already identified Reuel/Jethro in that role. The simplest resolution—recognized by many modern commentators—is that the underlying consonantal term here may refer more broadly to an affinal relation, allowing Hobab to be understood as Moses’ brother-in-law (i.e., Zipporah’s brother) rather than his father-in-law.¹

The ambiguity is compounded in Judges 4:11, where Hobab is again called:

“Hobab the Kenite, the ḥōtēn of Moses…”

Here the term again appears, and once more the precise relationship depends on whether one insists on the narrow sense “father-in-law” or allows the wider semantic range “in-law/kinsman by marriage.”

These overlapping identifications—Jethro/Reuel as ḥōtēn (Exod 3:1; 18:1) and Hobab as ḥōtēn (Num 10:29; Judg 4:11)—are not best resolved by forcing a contradiction, but by recognizing that the Hebrew root חתן functions as a kinship term within a covenantal framework, not a strictly biological descriptor in the modern sense.

This broader usage is consistent with wider ANE patterns in which kinship language regularly functions in diplomatic and covenantal contexts. In treaty texts from Mari, Alalakh, and Hatti, terms such as “father,” “brother,” and “son” are used to express political alliance, loyalty, and obligation rather than literal descent.² Within such a conceptual world, to call Jethro or Hobab Moses’ ḥtn is to locate them within a network of covenantal kinship obligations created through marriage and alliance.

This helps explain why the Kenites are later treated as permanent covenant allies of Israel. In Judges 1:16, the “descendants of the Kenite, Moses’ ḥōtēn,” accompany Judah into the Negev, and in 1 Samuel 15:6 Saul spares the Kenites explicitly “because you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” The language of “kindness” (ḥesed) in that context carries covenantal overtones, suggesting that the earlier affinal bond had matured into a recognized inter-tribal covenant relationship.

Accordingly, the genealogical language surrounding Moses’ in-laws should not be read narrowly as an attempt to preserve precise biological lineage. Rather, it signals the formation of a durable covenantal bond between Moses’ household and a southern priestly clan—one that is remembered and honored in Israel’s later historical traditions.

“You Shall Be Our Eyes”: Wilderness Knowledge and Israel’s Dependence

The practical dimension of this relationship surfaces explicitly in Numbers 10:29–32, where Moses entreats Hobab to accompany Israel through the wilderness: “You shall be our eyes.” This is not rhetorical flourish. Survival in the Sinai and Negev required intimate knowledge of water sources, seasonal grazing patterns, and safe routes through contested tribal territories. Archaeological and ethnographic studies of pastoral nomadism confirm that such knowledge was typically preserved within specific clans and transmitted across generations.⁶

The Kenites, therefore, were not incidental companions but indispensable guides whose expertise enabled Israel’s passage. Their later settlement alongside Judah (Judg 1:16) and their protection in Saul’s campaign against Amalek (1 Sam 15:6) attest to a long-standing covenantal relationship rooted in this wilderness partnership.

Jethro the Priest and the Question of Early Yahwism

Perhaps the most theologically significant dimension of the Kenite connection emerges in Exodus 18. Jethro is introduced explicitly as a “priest of Midian” (כֹּהֵן מִדְיָן, kōhēn Midyān), yet his actions throughout the narrative suggest that his priesthood is not merely generic or polytheistic in orientation. Upon hearing of Israel’s deliverance, Jethro blesses Yahweh by name:

“Blessed be Yahweh, who has delivered you… Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all the gods” (Exod 18:10–11).

He then offers burnt offerings and sacrifices to Yahweh, and presides over a covenantal meal in which Aaron and the elders of Israel participate before God (Exod 18:12). Significantly, the narrative does not present Jethro as undergoing conversion or instruction in Yahweh worship. Rather, he appears as a recognized priestly mediator who already possesses knowledge of Yahweh and responds to His acts with liturgical competence and theological clarity.

This observation has led many scholars to reconsider the geographical and cultural origins of Yahwistic devotion, particularly in light of poetic biblical traditions that consistently associate Yahweh’s earliest manifestation with the southern regions of Edom, Seir, Paran, and Teman:

“Yahweh came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran” (Deut 33:2)
“O Yahweh, when you went out from Seir… the earth trembled” (Judg 5:4–5)
“God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran” (Hab 3:3)

These texts do not depict Yahweh as emerging from the land of Canaan or the Nile Delta, but rather from the southern wilderness zone stretching from Edom into northwest Arabia, precisely the region associated with Midianite and Kenite groups.

The “Shasu of Yhw” in Egyptian Texts

This southern localization finds intriguing resonance in Egyptian New Kingdom inscriptions that reference nomadic peoples known as the Shasu (šꜣsw), a term used broadly for semi-nomadic pastoralists inhabiting the Transjordan, Negev, and southern Levant.

In inscriptions from the reigns of Amenhotep III (14th century BCE) and later Ramesses II, Egyptian topographical lists mention a group designated as:

“tꜣ šꜣsw yhwꜣ” — “the land of the Shasu of Yhw”

These inscriptions are preserved in temple reliefs at Soleb and Amarah-West in Nubia.¹ The toponym Yhw (often vocalized Yahu or Yahweh) is widely regarded by many scholars as the earliest extra-biblical reference to the divine name Yahweh, associated not with settled Canaanite city-states but with nomadic groups in the southern Transjordan/Edom region.²

While the precise phonetic equivalence between Yhw and the tetragrammaton (YHWH) cannot be proven with absolute certainty, the convergence of:

the geographic location (Edom/Midian region),
the nomadic tribal context (Shasu pastoralists), and
the phonetic similarity to Yahweh

has led many historians of religion (e.g., Cross, Albright, Smith) to regard the Shasu references as highly suggestive evidence for a southern origin or early center of Yahweh devotion.

https://armstronginstitute.org/files/W1siZiIsIjIwMjIvMTAvMDYvN2F0ZThrdW41Zl9zQlNDYS5qcGVnIl0sWyJwIiwidGh1bWIiLCIxMjAweD4iXSxbInAiLCJlbmNvZGUiLCJqcGciLCItcXVhbGl0eSA4MCJdXQ/8df96e9440dfafe4/sBSCa.jpg.jpg

https://armstronginstitute.org/files/W1siZiIsIjIwMjIvMTAvMDYvNHczNW5wbzc1MF9Tb2xlYjMuanBlZyJdLFsicCIsInRodW1iIiwiMTIwMHg-Il0sWyJwIiwiZW5jb2RlIiwianBnIiwiLXF1YWxpdHkgODAiXV0/bc9402332c6c87af/Soleb3.jpg.jpg

Soleb Temple cartouche referring to tꜣ šꜣsw yhwꜣ (“the land of the Shasu of Yhw”), reign of Amenhotep III (14th century BCE), Nubia (modern Sudan). The inscription appears within a topographical list of foreign peoples, represented as bound captives and labeled with their territorial or tribal names.

Midian, Kenites, and the Transmission of Yahwism

When the biblical data and Egyptian inscriptions are read together, a coherent historical-theological picture begins to emerge. Moses encounters Yahweh in the land of Midian (Exod 3:1), at “the mountain of God,” before Sinai becomes Israel’s covenantal center. His father-in-law Jethro is a priest operating within that same southern milieu and demonstrates familiarity with Yahweh’s identity and character. The poetic traditions remember Yahweh as advancing from Seir, Paran, and Teman—regions overlapping with Midianite and Kenite territory. And Egyptian inscriptions independently attest to a nomadic group in that region associated with a deity named Yhw.

Taken together, these data points suggest that the Sinai revelation did not occur in a theological vacuum, but within a broader southern Yahwistic milieu in which the divine name and worship of Yahweh were already known among certain nomadic groups.

It is important, however, to avoid reductionistic conclusions. The biblical narrative does not portray Israel as merely “borrowing” a deity from the Kenites or Midianites. Rather, it presents Moses’ encounter with Yahweh as a decisive revelatory event that brings clarity, covenantal structure, and universal scope to a name and reality that may already have been known in fragmentary or localized form.

In this sense, Jethro and the Kenite/Midianite milieu function not as the source of Israel’s faith, but as a providential bridge—a relational and cultural context through which Moses is introduced to the divine name and through which Yahweh begins to reveal Himself more fully in redemptive history.

Theological Implications

This reading has several important theological implications. First, it underscores that God’s self-disclosure often occurs within real historical and cultural networks, rather than in isolation from them. Second, it highlights the presence of non-Israelite witnesses to Yahweh prior to Sinai, anticipating the later biblical theme of the nations coming to recognize Israel’s God. And third, it deepens our understanding of Moses himself as a figure shaped by both Egyptian formation and Kenite-Midianite priestly tradition, standing at the intersection of worlds as the mediator of covenant revelation.

In this light, Exodus 18 is not a peripheral narrative but a theological window into the pre-Sinai knowledge of Yahweh—a moment in which the priest of Midian and the elders of Israel sit together before God, acknowledging a divine reality that transcends ethnic and geographic boundaries even as it becomes covenantally focused in Israel.

Covenant Beyond Ethnicity: The Kenites as Early Yahwists

The presence of the Kenites in Israel’s story illustrates a recurring biblical theme: covenant identity is not reducible to biological descent. From the “mixed multitude” of Exodus 12:38 to Rahab and Ruth, the Old Testament consistently portrays Yahweh’s people as covenantally rather than ethnically defined. The Kenites stand among the earliest examples of this phenomenon—non-Israelite Yahwists who become enduring partners in Israel’s history.

This pattern does not dilute Israel’s calling; it clarifies it. Israel is chosen not as an end in itself but as a people through whom the knowledge of Yahweh extends outward. The Kenites, in turn, embody the inverse movement: outsiders drawn into covenant participation through allegiance to Israel’s God.

Moses as a Figure Formed Between Worlds

Moses emerges from this narrative as a figure uniquely formed by two worlds. Educated in the court of Egypt and tempered in the tents of Midian, he embodies both imperial literacy and nomadic wisdom. His judicial reforms in Exodus 18—prompted by Jethro’s counsel—reflect an administrative model resonant with ANE practices, yet adapted to Israel’s covenantal life.

Theologically, Moses stands at the intersection of traditions: he encounters Yahweh in Midianite territory, receives the covenant at Sinai, and leads a people whose identity is forged through both divine revelation and wilderness dependence. His leadership is thus not the product of isolation but of relational formation, shaped decisively by his Kenite hosts.

Conclusion

The Kenites occupy a subtle but indispensable place in the biblical narrative of origins. Through kinship alliance, priestly mediation, and wilderness expertise, they participate in the formation of Israel’s earliest experience of Yahweh. Whether one adopts a strong or modest version of the Kenite hypothesis, the convergence of biblical, linguistic, and extra-biblical evidence points in a single direction: Israel’s encounter with Yahweh is deeply intertwined with the southern nomadic world of Midian and the Kenites.

This recognition invites a broader theological reflection. Divine revelation, in the biblical witness, often emerges not in isolation but in the intersections of cultures, peoples, and relationships. The story of Moses and the Kenites reminds us that God’s purposes are frequently mediated through unexpected partners—and that the wilderness, far from being a place of absence, is a place where covenant is forged in the company of others.

Footnotes

On the social status of the ger and its ANE parallels, see K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 328–32.
Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 56–72; cf. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 283–90.
Nadav Na’aman, “The Kenites and the Origin of the Yahwistic Cult,” Biblical Archaeology Review and subsequent studies; see also M. E. Mondriaan, “The Kenites in the Old Testament Tradition,” Old Testament Essays 24 (2011).
Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 273–74.
HALOT, s.v. חתן; Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Tribes of Israel and Their Territories,” and TheTorah.com, “Moses’ Father-in-Law: Kenite or Midianite?”
James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 112–35.
Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 60–75; Patrick D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 59–64.
Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, 273–74; Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions (Oxford: Blackwell, 1975–90).
Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 60–75; Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 32–41; William F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), 191–210.
Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God, 40–48; James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai, 143–52.

Primary Texts and Ancient Sources

Cross, Frank Moore, ed. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Kitchen, Kenneth A., ed. Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical. Oxford: Blackwell, 1975–1990.

Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Sparks, Kenton L., ed. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005.

Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002.

Kenites, Midianites, and Southern Yahwism

Na’aman, Nadav. “The Kenites and the Origin of the Yahwistic Cult.” Biblical Archaeology Review and subsequent studies.

Mondriaan, M. E. “The Kenites in the Old Testament Tradition.” Old Testament Essays 24 (2011): 455–473.

Albright, William F. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968.

Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic.

Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Van der Toorn, Karel. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Fleming, Daniel E. The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible: History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Exodus Traditions, Sinai, and the Wilderness

Hoffmeier, James K. Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Kitchen, K. A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Propp, William H. C. Exodus 1–18. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.

Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1987.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1974.

Sarna, Nahum M. Exploring Exodus. New York: Schocken, 1996.

ANE Treaty, Kinship, and Covenant Language

McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.

Kitchen, K. A., and Paul J. N. Lawrence. Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.

Mendenhall, George E., and Gary A. Herion. “Covenant.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary.

Younger, K. Lawson Jr. Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.

Hebrew Linguistics and Lexical Studies

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

Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (TLOT). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “The Tribes of Israel and Their Territories.”

Huehnergard, John. A Grammar of Akkadian. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.

Egyptology and the Shasu / Yhw Inscriptions

Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times.

Giveon, Raphael. Les Bédouins Shosou des documents égyptiens. Leiden: Brill, 1971.

Astour, Michael C. “Yahweh in Egyptian Topographical Lists.” In Festschrift Elmar Edel.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ramesside Inscriptions.

Leclant, Jean. Studies on Soleb Temple Inscriptions.

History of Israelite Religion and Yahwism

Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.

Miller, Patrick D. The Religion of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000.

Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995.

Theological and Canonical Reflection

Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003.

Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

The Covenant of Marriage – Conference Notes

Posted by expedition44 on February 12, 2026

Marriage as Covenant Before the Lord

A Biblical-Theological and Socio-Historical Exploration

I. Covenant Ontology in the Hebrew Scriptures

1. Berit (בְּרִית): Covenant as Ontological Bond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The covenantal nature becomes clearer in Genesis 2:24:

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

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

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

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

II. Marriage in Israel’s Covenant Consciousness

1. Prophetic Marriage Metaphor and Covenant Theology

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

Isaiah 54:5 declares:

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

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

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

2. Second Temple Developments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Jesus: Covenant Restoration and Creation Authority

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

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

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

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

V. Pauline Theology: Marriage Within the New Covenant

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

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

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

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

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

Verse 32 is climactic:

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

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

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

2. 1 Corinthians 7: Reciprocity in a Patriarchal Context

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

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

VI. Theological Themes of Covenant Marriage

1. Coram Deo: Marriage Before the Face of God

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

Marriage is therefore an act of worshipful oath-taking.

2. Covenant Fidelity as Sanctification

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

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

3. Eschatological Orientation

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

VII. Contemporary Application: Recovering Covenant Gravity

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

Biblical covenant marriage requires:

Vow consciousness
Theological literacy
Liturgical seriousness
Church accountability

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

Pastorally, couples must be shepherded toward:

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Discussion Questions

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

Bibliography & Further Reading

Biblical and Lexical Resources

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

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

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

Covenant Theology and Old Testament Foundations

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

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

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

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

Ancient Hebrew Research Center. “Definition of Covenant.”

Marriage in the Old Testament and Ancient Near East

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

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

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

Second Temple and Greco-Roman Context

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament Theology of Marriage

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

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

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

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

Theological and Pastoral Reflection

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

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

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

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

Signs of Covenant Faithfulness

Posted by expedition44 on January 30, 2026

1. Faith and Trust in God’s Word

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

2. Obedience Flowing from Love

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

3. Communion & Sabbath Rest

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

Circumcision – Washing of Feet – Baptism – Communion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diving deeper into Circumcision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

GENESIS 17 AND THE COVENANT

Posted by expedition44 on January 20, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The covenant and marriage 2

Posted by expedition44 on March 26, 2025

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.

https://www.chaimbentorah.com/2015/11/word-study-his-covenant-%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%aa%d7%95/
IBID
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.
Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 136.
Warren Baker and Eugene Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003), 166.
According to a search of the text of the Hebrew Bible in The Scriptures: CD-ROM Resource Edition 1.0.
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.
https://cufi.org/resource/what-does-it-mean-to-cut-a-covenant/
Dr. Will Ryan’s Book, “This is the Way” to covenant discipleship
https://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/10/cutting-covenant-and-when-covenant.html
https://reknew.org/2019/09/why-did-god-require-animal-sacrifice-in-the-old-testament/
https://overviewbible.com/covenant-john-walton/

The covenant and marriage

Posted by expedition44 on March 8, 2025

The goal of gathering information on this topic is that it might be activated and transformed continually to you. “Do or do not. There is no try” [1] You are a minister of the order of the holy royal priesthood, and your primary congregation is your spouse and family. “Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.” [2] In a marriage you always think your perspective is correct, yet if you are in a covenant relationship your spouse, your primary covenant relationship is based on the Lord [first]. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is commissioned through your spouse to give you the gift of a divine perspective when you aren’t able to see clearly yourself. There are a lot of repercussions today of the modern church not understanding ancient covenant language that have affected our marriages, family, and the body of Christ. I think we need a return to covenant faithfulness, and it starts with each of us in covenant relationship before the Lord, then to our marriage, families and unto the ends of the earth by discipleship.

“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” Revelation 4:11

“In the ultimate sense, your marriage has nothing to do with your spouse. It has everything to do with your relationship to Jesus Christ” (279). [3]

Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 states that two are better than one, as they can help each other and share the rewards of their labor. If one falls, the other can lift them up, but woe to the person who is alone when they fall.

Let all that you do be done in love. 1 Corinthians 16:14

Your marriage first has to be grounded individually in the love of Christ and then reflected towards your spouse. The word love in our culture is overworked and overlooked. An overworked word loses its meaning. An overlooked word has no meaning at all.

Love in the OT is a spontaneous feeling which impels to self-giving, to grasping that which causes it, or to pleasurable activity. It involves the inner person. Since it has a sexual basis, it is directed supremely to persons; love for things or acts has a metaphorical aspect. God’s love is correlative to his personal nature, and love for God is love first for his person and only then for his word or law. Yet even in the extended sense love has an element of fervor or passion except in the case of lesser objects. In the secular sphere love is for husband or wife, parents or children, friends, masters, servants, and social groups. This use is more common than the religious use and may thus be taken as the basis of interpretation. [4]

Does this come as a surprise that the Hebrew ahavah and its Greek correlate agape both have sexual roots? Consider for a moment that YHVH uses marriage and adultery as the paradigm examples of covenant relationship with Him. It’s all about intimacy, ecstasy, bliss, jubilation and euphoria. It should be the ultimate metaphor of Joy. Sex is likely the closest slice (or foreshadow) of heaven we will ever get, especially if it is performed in the light that God intended. I give “rapture” theology a hard time, but maybe we have similarly victimized agape by turning it into a set of proxy principles, a way of feeling religious virtue without ever taking off our clothes. Arm’s-length intimacy isn’t found in Scripture. We have learned to view love in an incomplete form, and anything outside of Christ is incomplete.

The primary word for love in Hebrew is ahavah (אַהֲבָה). Ahavah conveys both human and divine love. It appears in a range of contexts, from romantic love (e.g., Jacob’s love for Rachel in Genesis 29:20) to the covenantal love between God and His people (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:7–8). Ahavah emphasizes action and commitment. This is evident in Deuteronomy 6:5: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.” Here, ahavah signifies an all-encompassing devotion rooted in faithfulness and obedience. [5]

Another significant Hebrew term is chesed (חֶסֶד), often translated as “loving-kindness” or “steadfast love.” While not synonymous with ahavah, chesed communicates God’s covenantal loyalty and mercy, such as in Psalm 136, where the refrain declares, “His steadfast love endures forever.”

Together, ahavah and chesed demonstrate a love that is both relational and enduring. [6]

In covenant marriage, this multifaceted understanding of love calls for a life of devotion, selflessness, and community. By living out this love, we participate in the divine mission of bringing healing and reconciliation into our marriage, our families, and through discipleship, to the end of the broken world.

“[It is] a central scriptural teaching…that wherever anything wrong exists in the world, anything we experience as anti-normative, evil, distorted, or sick, there we meet the perversion of God’s good creation. It is one of the unique and distinctive features of the Bible’s teaching on the human situation that all evil and perversity in the world is ultimately the result of humanity’s fall, of its refusal to live according to the good ordinances of God’s creation. Human disobedience and guilt lie in the last analysis at the root of all the troubles on earth.” [7]

Consider now how frequently idolatry and sexual immorality appear in tandem throughout the biblical narrative (see Exodus 32, Isaiah 57:7-8, Hosea 4:12-14, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5, Revelation 2:14, 20, 21:25).

“The link between idolatry and sexual immorality is established by the frequent use of ‘prostituting themselves’ or ‘adultery’ to describe Hebrew idolatry [in the Old Testament]. Israel’s unfaithfulness to God was not only a form of spiritual prostitution or adultery, but it also led to the physical acts themselves.” [8]

Sexual sin is merely a symptom of something else. Everything is turned upside down—splintered, deformed, and henceforth, death-dealing to our spirituality. The Greek pornea primary definition is adultery, but it has a secondary meaning of idolatry. It was connected to sexual practices involved in pagan worship. Among pagans, temple prostitutes and group orgies were a reality. The prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel also employ this metaphor. Jeremiah 3:6-9 describes Israel’s idolatry as harlotry:

“During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, ‘Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every green tree to prostitute herself there.’ … ‘Because Israel’s immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood.'”

Similarly, Ezekiel 16 and 23 provide graphic depictions of Israel’s idolatry as adulterous behavior, emphasizing the betrayal of the covenant relationship.

The book of James further reinforces this concept by addressing the divided loyalties of believers.

James 4:4 states, “You adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore, whoever chooses to be a friend of the world renders himself an enemy of God.”

Here, the language of adultery is used to describe the spiritual unfaithfulness of aligning with worldly values over God’s commandments.

Throughout Scripture, idolatry is depicted as spiritual adultery which serves as a powerful reminder of the exclusive devotion God demands from His people. It highlights the seriousness of idolatry, not merely as a breach of religious practice but as a profound betrayal of the intimate relationship God desires with His followers. [9]

Covenant and replacement Theology

This is not really a post on a particular theology, I don’t really subscribe to much of any boxes to check in that regard, but since you might be wondering, I will expound here briefly. It then becomes very interesting that many scholars would say that God eventually “divorces” Israel for her unfaithfulness paving the way for the New Covenant for all to be grafted into the “body of Christ,” the “church” as the “new” bride of Christ. Although this is the heart of replacement theology and often argued (to may take the simple analogy too far), it is hard to deny that in a basic sense God has severed His relationship with unfaithful Israel and offered it to all who will accept Him. Where “replacement Theology” might be perceived as a bit “off” here is when you come to the realization that God’s plan through the Abrahamic Covenant was to redeem or reconcile all the nations. Israel would simply be that catalyst, and when they failed to follow through in their covenant mission, God simply adapted a plan for “all” to return to Him. However, this is splitting hairs as the plan of covenant relationship was always for those that made a personal decision and were willing to enter into allegiant obedience with Him. The offering simply started with all of Israel being chosen to receive a special favor of redemption through the Exodus to begin that process. to some regard special privilege as a nation was given to Israel as a whole but not to the extent of some magic tractor beam that some have made it out to sound like. The covenant relationship that God offers to anyone, Israel or those under the New Covenant was always prefaced by the need to enter into obedient relationship with Him. In that sense what God was looking for never changed from the former covenants to the New Covenant.

Love in Covenant Relationships

Covenant relationships form the backbone of many biblical narratives, embodying a commitment that goes beyond mere agreements to encompass mutual devotion and loyalty. These relationships, often likened to the bond between God and His people, reflect a profound level of trust and dedication. Within the context of marriage, the covenant relationship symbolizes a lifelong promise, where love is not merely an emotion but a steadfast commitment to uphold the precepts of the Lord as mosaic picture of sacrificial love and the essence of the Love of Jesus towards another. In a covenant relationship, love has always been characterized by unwavering faithfulness.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:20

God’s covenant relationship with us is a metaphor of marital faithfulness. It’s not just about sexual fidelity but sex has a very big role to play in this metaphor, so much so that idolatry is viewed in sexual terms. We see this again when Paul chooses the Greek term katallasso as the verb about returning to the Lord. Katallasso means “to reconcile,” and is used in 1 Corinthians 7:11 about marriage reconciliation. This Greek verb is the verb for marriage counseling. It is the goal and the means by which estranged couples reunite. And if Paul uses this verb as the actions required of broken marriages, how much more applicable is it when it comes to broken fellowship with the Great Lover His church. Pagans convert. Jews return. This message isn’t just for the married, it is also to those that have lost their covenant. Paul is reaching out to those who were once part of the fellowship but now don’t live like it. This can be seen as directed towards Israel, but also anyone else who has strayed. Their error is divorcing God. They knew God but they chose to live for their own agendas. Perhaps today in our modern religious circles there are a lot more who need to be reconciled than we thought. Perhaps the most important function of the “church” is “divorce counseling” with those who thought marriage to God only meant signing the contract. We have learned to treat this covenant like a contract of the world not a spiritual covenant. I have always had a hard time with evangelical crusades that emphasize the salvific concentration without the follow-up of deeper discipleship. It resembles a one-night stand kind of theology rather than a lifetime of faithful commitment.

For believers, covenant faithfulness involves a response to God’s steadfast love through obedience, worship, and devotion. The call to faithfulness is echoed in 1 Corinthians 4:2, “Now it is required of stewards that they be found faithful.” Christians are encouraged to live in a manner worthy of the calling they have received, reflecting God’s faithfulness in their relationships and commitments. When we fail to live intimately in the covenant that God offers to us it is describes with the same words as adultery and idolatry. In this sense casual Christianity equates with grounds for spiritual divorce. (I never knew you.) Yet God is pictured as a faithful partner that is always asking the unfaithful one to come back into lost devotion.

The Book of Hebrews exhorts believers to hold fast to their hope without wavering, for “He who promised is faithful” (Hebrews 10:23). This assurance of God’s faithfulness provides the foundation for a life of trust and perseverance in the covenant marriage and the Christian journey. That is the heart of the covenant. That we might be completely undivided to this journey of covenant faithfulness to the Lord and then to our spouse, our families, and unto the end of the world to those that are endeared together in this commissional calling. It is a return to Eden and beyond.

SPECIAL THANKS TO Krista Bensheimer and Steve and Kay Cassell who contributed to the article.

Master Yoda – Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, George Lucas
Master Yoda – Star Wars: Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, George Lucas
Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires, The Respect He Desperately Needs. Emerson Eggerichs. Nashville, TN: Nelson, Thomas Inc., 2004.
Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch
^IBID
Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, p. 46
Dennis P. Hollinger, The Meaning of Sex: Christian Ethics and the Moral Life
https://biblehub.com/topical/i/idolatry_as_spiritual_adultery.htm

Soteriology, Baptism, and Discipleship

Posted by expedition44 on January 24, 2025

When I was younger, I believed that theological “strength” meant to understand something so firmly that you never waiver from that stance. I think that is still true to much regard and it is important to know your essentials as a basis for your foundation of Truth. This likely includes doctrine on the Divinity of Jesus, the death, resurrection, ascension and throning of Jesus as king, the authority of Scripture, and other similar doctrinal positions. But I have found that on non-essential doctrine and the impact that it might have on your complete lens of scripture, that those in pursuit of the truth transparently guided by the Spirit will at some point be led to a better view. A dynamic open mind based on the wise counsel and discussion with others and guiding of the Spirit leads to deeper spiritual maturity. I don’t have much space left to “fight” over theology but am still incredibly passionate in my pursuit for scriptural depth and understanding.

I grew up believing in some sort of profession of the 4 spiritual laws that would then lead one to the act of baptism as an outward sign of giving their life to the Lord. Rallies that would stack up thousands of people at alter calls and then seemingly leave them hanging to figure it out. The last 50 years or so of evangelical Christianity has loved to brag about all the conversions that has produced at best nominal followers of Jesus and possibly even the results of Matt 7:23. Today I don’t necessarily disagree with that perspective (or give those that hold to it a difficult time); I believe there is a place and season for everything mentioned in the Word, but I think the Bible describes a different primary plan. Every time I hear of a church that is started with the main purpose or solely exists to “discover Jesus for the first time” I cringe. As I think there is a place for evangelism, I am not convinced that Jesus made that the main thrust of His ministry by example, or that the scriptures teach that the assembly of believers is the place for evangelism (wouldn’t that be a misnomer or contradiction of terms?). Jesus modeled by deeper discipleship. I see the “one night stand” soteriology (put another mark on the belt and move on mentality) as a result of our last centuries emphasis on momentary decisions that we refer to as being saved. I don’t see salvation as a line that signifies a moment of time that can simply be crossed, but rather a journey of sanctification. It is the life we live. I also think Jesus emphasized the life of dedicated discipleship of those fully given to Him, rather than mass conversion and especially without the emphasis of ever shepherding them to deeper convictions of life in Him. The scripture, both New and Old Testaments were never about kindergarten faith, but rather the deepest pursuit of devotion. To return to Edenic walking with God.

“Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” Acts 8:36 NASB

In Acts 8 we find a story of an Ethiopian Eunuch walking down the road and is approached by Phillip. As in most stories you have heard, this one also might require some deconstruction to find a better biblical narrative or interpretive message for us. The Eunuch is on the road because he is coming from worshipping in Jerusalem. He is reading a scroll of Isaiah 53. Consider these two things. First, it tells us he was devout and practicing already. Attending several week festivals was a practice for the faithful. The fact that he possessed a scroll of Isaiah is also fascinating. Perhaps it was on borrow from his Queen but likely not, it was probably his personal possession and required a great deal of his economic ability. This came at great cost in the first century. He knows the passage but is deep in study over it. His question is concerning a better interpretation.

What we come to is that baptism followed a conversion of not simply aligning the head and the heart with some ideology; but making an allegiant decision to change the course of your life and follow the way. Things have changed in the church over the last 2000 years. Baptism has become something for those that are convinced to believe in a pamphlet rather than the first century decision of joining the way and what that entailed. In the first century you left your former life and were baptized into a new way of life. You then left your former occupation (i.e. fisherman) and became a follower of Jesus as primary occupation. That was what it meant that Jesus now takes residence in your heart. That is why after Jesus is resurrected, He isn’t too happy with the disciples going back to fishing. Shouldn’t they know better after walking with Him for three years? But in the same way that they didn’t get it, that is also the problem with our current Christian culture, we still don’t get it. Today we might emphasize the importance to make a decision, and we often say it is a “life decision”, but certainly not to the weight of the first century. That’s why Nicodemus was wrestling with it. He knew the law well, he wasn’t at odds with the head and the heart, he was deciding whether he was going to give up everything he knew and had for a new life of minimal earthly materials and full devotion to this occupation of Jesus. Today we sort of leave that part out of joining the way of Jesus in our evangelistic pursuits. It wouldn’t sell very well. Giving up materialism in America to follow Jesus probably wouldn’t make for a lot of decisions under the light and laser show alter calls.

As I alluded to earlier. The assembly for the “body of believers” doesn’t really see like the right place for evangelism. It isn’t wrong (I don’t think), nut out of place or proportion. Even the fact that we have alter calls in church today is a bit counter to the biblical essence of the decision. We call the church the body of believers, yet we invite a bunch of non-believers to that body in hopes of making momentary decisions. Where did the invitation to love your neighbor in your home go? The church then becomes “the body of momentary decision makers and some that are still considering” rather than the body of Christ; we have to put on a show and water down the discipleship to change the motive. The Law actually described this as defilement. I might remind you that one of the primary directives was to not mix the temple areas with those that didn’t believe. That was strictly forbidden and had great consequences. When did we forget this? Is the modern church defiled and need to be cleansed according to the law that I will remind you Jesus followed to a “T.” Modern salvific thrusts of churchianity today even seem far from the life changing covenant community of the way of Jesus during the first century.

But don’t get me wrong, I do see willful individual decisions that need to be made in the New Testament. I have a place for it, but just don’t think it should be our main thrust or concern and especially within the assembly of believers. It has trumped the preeminent calling of Jesus to lead people into deeper waters. So, you are going to be surprised when I challenge you that there are really only three examples of momentary decisions in the biblical narrative and that is arguable at most. The best and perhaps only clear example we have in scripture for a radical momentary decision followed by baptism is of the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16. We have the thief on the cross but there isn’t baptism in that story and that one is complicated because it is still under the Old Covenant when most theologians would take an Apostle’s Creedal view that the thief died and went to paradise and Christ descended to preach giving those in “places of waiting” a last chance at salvation. Therefore, the thief’s salvation might be granted through the work of the cross running backward more than salvatory work post resurrection. It is also worth pointing out that the thief was likely Jewish and therefore would have been somewhat observant and at one in his life possibly even devout. Some have proposed that he might even be an example of one that left the faith and God then redeemed at his death bed in hopes of supporting a once saved always saved premonition; but to be clear, scripture doesn’t give us that, at least here. There is also the Syro-Phoenician woman, but she is even more complicated than the first two examples. There may be others, but they aren’t specifically mentioned in scripture. The great majority of baptism encounters we read (including Jesus Himself) come long after we would consider the point of adherence of the heart and mind. The examples of baptism largely teach that those baptized would have already been “saved” but are making a decision to leave their former way of life and completely follow Jesus. That’s radical. That’s what Jesus asked of the 12. He wanted them to leave everything on the beach and follow him not returning to their former lives. That’s still what He asks of us and biblically is still what signifies baptism.

Baptism was intended as a sign to enter into the deepest waters with Jesus, not just dip your toes in the water! The idea is you start with deep water immersion and pretty soon you’re walking with Jesus on the water over the deepest depths.

Our culture gets it off -wrong maybe- we are baptizing baby Christians. In the Bible they baptized those ready to be all in, to go deep! To finally give up their entanglement to the world and serve one Master. The early Christians practiced a form of communal living, sharing their resources to ensure that no member was in need. Acts 4:32-35 describes this practice: “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they owned… There were no needy ones among them.”

In the gospels and first church those that got baptized had a history with God – and God had a history with them.

In all of the biblical examples coming to this place took time, it wasn’t a momentary decision from an alter call. In fact the Eunuchs exclamation of “what prevents me from being baptized right now” should tell you that that was radical. The Centurian of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, that decision of “the greatest faith” likely cost him his life.

However, as a theologian who weighs every option and doesn’t like to leave any stone left unturned… Let me also give you the other side of the coin for consideration. It’s worth pointing out that the way of Jesus was new to mature Jews. That is what “THIS” baptism meant. That Jesus was your LORD. I can see how 2000 years later things would slightly change and that’s why I say I’m open to the current salvation crusades and alter calls in a place and season that we’re in. I have a place for it. In the first century the way was just found, we have had it for 2000 years. There is also the fact that we don’t have all of the story in the Bible. We don’t know if the Eunuch, Nicodemus, or the Centurian every became deep disciples. Church history and extra biblical sources alludes that they did, but the Bible doesn’t hold that for us. We are left to wonder. But I want to be clear here. When the Bible gives us something, an example a recipe or something to that type; we need to follow it. I have a little room for the evolution of church over 2000 years but not if it gets too far off the example given in scripture. If the scripture describes something that’s usually the way I wanna do it! I think there is some room to change with modernity but not a lot. The progression of the last 75 years to emphasize baby faith over deeper faith doesn’t seem scriptural and I think we need to find the roots of Christianity and the Way of Jesus back into our assembly of believers and who we are as occupational to the calling of our faith.

Fire sale salvation is based on an assumption that the primary goal of life is simply to attain something to get to heaven. It becomes ticket punching theology. Because of this, most western churches have become singularly interested in bringing people to a point of simple decision making and are happy to leave it at that. We have missed the compelling message of Jesus to deeply shepherd and disciple. All we are looking for is a verbal confession and once we get it, it’s time to move on to the next one. It almost is reduced to a competitive game of who can score the most. It devalues the gospel. Sure, we expect the Spirit to sort of take over, and He does… but we have hardly lived up to our end of the deal as the physical manifestation of the hands of Jesus. Can God use it? Absolutely, but I’m sure He desires more of us, and I believe scripture has made that clear. He always desires a better biblical directive and deeper actions of the heart from us.

There is an enormous difference between the pursuit of kindergarten Christianity and the idea of faithful covenantal living. The urgency of one is replaced by the patience of the other. The destination of one is replaced by the direction of the other. One is about ritual; the other about relationship.

We need to return to the covenant communities of the first century that made allegiant decisions that resulted in leaving the world and being immersed in the way of Jesus – (nothing else, no room for that “stuff”) an all in expression of devotion.

NATURAL ORDER

Posted by expedition44 on January 14, 2025

I want to talk about what is meant by God’s order, but before I do that, I want to guide you through a brief exegetical teaching through the text. When you hear the word order in relation to a biblical sense we have been conditioned to think about creation, law, hierarchy in the church and marriage, and perhaps even church discipline. Although it encompasses those things, I find it unfortunate that we start there, and therefore I feel we might need some deconstruction to get to good.

In the morning, O Lord, You will hear my voice; in the morning I will order my prayer to You and eagerly watch. Psalm 5:3 NASB

As I begin to read this in Hebrew the first thing that I notice in contrast to most English translations is the phrase “My prayer” is not found in the text. It isn’t a bad translation as I get the context leans that way but in Hebrew the verse better reads, “I will order toward you” which emphasizes a slightly different posture. Interesting the word prayer isn’t really there, perhaps a NT implication or even insertion. Prayer in the OT was a bit different than the way we understand it today. It was communal and far less personal (unless God appeared to you in a bush and orally spoke directly to you), after Jesus ascends to the throne and sends the Spirit to dwell in us and intercede, the biblical concept of prayer takes on a different form than what it had been considered over the last 2000 years or more. The way people thought of “prayer” in the OT may or may not be accurate. Are we just reading what they thought prayer was supposed to be perhaps based on what they knew of their former deities? Is this something that they got a bit off track with and Jesus sought to adjust or shed new light on? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Maybe our prayer should take a cue from the OT notions. When we read this verse in Hebrew form, we see that David isn’t talking about ritualistic prayer, or is he? He isn’t necessarily folding his hands and closing his eyes – but he is sort of. He is making a statement that if his life is in alignment with what is of God – TOV (creation order language), then he expects God to acknowledge and “DO THINGS” on his behalf. This may tie into the never-ending OT grappling over whether God was retributive or not, but it certainly had the trajectory of demonstrating the idea of devotion in connection to intimacy with the Lord. This connection over the years will then be attributed to the conjecture of relationship with the father in prayer. Some prayer is communal and some is personal.

Different people interact with God differently and perhaps in different seasons. Some say they don’t hear God and others act like God never stops screaming in their ear. How can the voice of God differ from person to person? Is it based on the posture of the heart, covenant faithfulness, gifting, seasons, understanding, choice, some sort of prejudice, or something completely different that is higher than our understanding? I believe that God is just that dynamic. I don’t know why He communicates differently to people and what it might be based on; I don’t always have the eyes of God. I believe Him to be Sovereign and know significantly more than we do in a much more complex grid. I am convinced that there are many things that influence this covenant relationship at a cosmic level. It is far bigger than simply me, and to think of my relationship with God (the creator of the universe) as doating on my every thought seems like a selfish notion. Does that view minimize a personal relationship or exemplify it?

God’s order is described in everything naturally defined by Yahweh and described generally as what is good (TOV). This is creation, the waters, the counting of the ark, the building of the temple, the pieces of firewood set in order for a sacrificial fire, showbread set out in two rows of six cakes on the gold table (Lev 24:8); seven altars set up by the pagan mantic Balaam (Num 23:4); stalks of flax arranged by Rahab for hiding the spies (Josh 2:6); a table prepared for dining (Ps 23:5; Isa 21:5); words produced for speaking (Job 32:14); a legal case developed for presentation (Job 13:18); etc. In II Sam 23:5 David exults in the covenant granted him by Yahweh, “for he has made with me an everlasting covenant, / ordered (ʿărûkâ) in all things and secure.^[1] We see God’s order in many ways, but the common thread that binds seems to be that it is given as a framework for our devotion to Him. This intimate devotion that is often described as reading or memorizing scripture, devotional repetition, standards of practice and living, and so much more are all described as what it means to be defined as SET APART. That we are defined and claimed as part of God’s order not the chaos of the world.

What defines this? Covenant. Covenant is the secure, accessible, and recognizable attribute of everything good that God offers to us. It is the basis of all of our interaction with the LORD. Without covenant we are detached or separated from the creator and his ways. When David chooses every morning to be in order, he is making a statement about the balance of life and the posture of the heart. The Hebrew term בְּרִית bĕriyth for “covenant” is from a root with the sense of “cutting”, because pacts or covenants were made by passing between cut pieces of flesh of an animal sacrifice.^[2] It meant something deep.

The New Covenant is a biblical interpretation originally derived from a phrase in the Book of Jeremiah and often thought of as an eschatological world to come related to the biblical concept of the Kingdom of God. Generally, Christians believe that the New Covenant was instituted at the Last Supper as part of the Eucharist, which in the Gospel of John includes the New Commandment.^[3] A connection between the Blood of Christ and the New Covenant is portrayed with the saying: “this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood”. Jesus is therefore the mediator of this New Covenant, and that his blood, shed is the required blood of the covenant. This is true looking back in both testaments and can be seen in all of the biblical covenants of the bible.

In the Christian context, this New Covenant is associated with the word ‘testament‘ in the sense of a ‘will left after the death of a person (Latin testamentum),^[4] the original Greek word used in Scripture being diatheke (διαθήκη) which in the Greek context meant ‘will (left after death)’ but is also a word play having a dual meaning of ‘covenant, alliance’.^[5] This notion implies a reinterpreted view of the Old Testament covenant as possessing characteristics of a ‘will left after death’ placing the old covenant, brit (בְּרִית) into a new application of understanding as revealed by the death, resurrection, ascension, and throning of CHRIST THE KING, JESUS. All things will forever connect at the covenants and be defined by the atoning accomplishments that transform into a covenant of eternity.

Order today might be better understood as a continually evolving algorithm based on the posture of your covenant faithfulness which, as I have described, is defined by many facets of devotion. Some may hear the audible voice of God more clearly while others simply see Him in every image. The revelation of God to us isn’t in a form of hierarchy. One form of transcendence doesn’t trump another. Who are we to judge anyway. But I do know that most of Christianity seems to be off course here. Rather than coming to the LORD as the cosmic wish granting genie in a bottle, let’s get back to biblical roots and think more covenantal and devotional based on the order that God modeled for us.

^[1] Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., Jr., & Waltke, B. K. (Eds.). (1999). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 696). Chicago: Moody Press.

^[2] Strong’s Concordance (1890).

^[3] “Comparison of the two covenants mediated by Moses and the two covenants mediated by Jesus”. 25 September 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-09-28. Retrieved 2023-01-29.

^[4]“testamentum: Latin Word Study Tool”. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved 2020-08-12.

^[5] G1242 – diathēkē – Strong’s Greek Lexicon (KJV)”. Blue Letter Bible. Retrieved 2020-08-12.

BAPTISM

Posted by expedition44 on June 23, 2024

Baptism, then, is not what produces salvation. It “saves” in that it reflects a heart decision: a pledge of loyalty to the risen Savior. In effect, baptism in New Testament theology is a loyalty oath, a public avowal of who is on the Lord’s side in the cosmic war between good and evil.

Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm

Baptism is important. In many ways, I think it is the purest example still intact today of what it meant to make an allegiant statement as they did in Jesus’ day. I am often asked what do you say when you baptize someone? People question as if there is some kind of magical phrase or potion that comes with Baptism. It probably won’t surprise you that I don’t really like the usual repetition of words that often come with baptismal “services”. You have probably heard a pastor proclaim something like, “in obedience to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and upon your profession of faith, I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.” It’s not that I have a big problem with these words, but my issue is more that the repetition of liturgy from scripture today probably wasn’t really what the authors had in mind here and in other similar situations such as the Lord’s prayer. But that doesn’t make it wrong to do so either. The words of baptism are important whether you see the act as a sacrament or more of an allegiant profession of faith. Nearly everyone sees baptism as an outward sign of a decision that has happened in the head and the heart. It’s the best picture of Biblical 1^st century allegiance still found within our modern western culture.

“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:3-4 ESV

We usually think of life at baptism, not death. We want to think joy and often in western thinking death is not joyous, but Paul’s culture (yes, I continue to arguably allude that Paul wrote Romans or at least had it penned) didn’t think like this. Death was often honorably esteemed and eventually everyone would die.

So why does Paul choose to use the phrase baptized into death? We need to consider how first century followers viewed baptism. Within Judaism, but also other religions baptism was a standard practice of renewal or cleansing.

Without venturing too far into this, baptism in the New Testament signifies an allegiant lifelong commitment (purification) similar to what God asked of Abraham in the covenant of circumcision. There are several connections that are important there.

At the time when this was written, the Greek term (which we transliterate “baptism”) was also a verb used to describe violent acts like drowning. We also see this similar usage in Luke 12:50 and several other places in the Bible. The author wants the reader to consider complete (possibly even violent) death of the old life. All that a person was, any influences you may have been under, any oaths of allegiance, and claims to who you were, even to the point of what you might have been completely immersed (water drowning metaphor) into that kind of living (antinomianism). Paul says it is now dead, all of it.

That’s why when Jesus says the centurion in Matthew 8 has more faith than anyone else (I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith) it was likely a death sentence, and the centurion was ready for that. He literally was ready to give up his oath of allegiance and life spiritually, but also physically. (That would have been the natural consequence for a centurion that placed their allegiance to anyone other than the emperor.)

When we choose to bury all that was us, we in turn accept new life in Christ pledging the reciprocal dance of grace. I have used this expression several times in the book. [The Roman writer] Seneca explains the image of three dancing connected by grace: a benefit ‘passing from hand to hand nevertheless returns to the giver; the beauty of the whole is destroyed if the course is anywhere broken’ (Seneca, [De Beneficiis, meaning “On Favors”] 1.3.3-4). The “three graces” picture visually represented how grace was understood to function in the first century Greco-Roman world in which Paul wrote. Grace (charis) originated with a generous giver usually thought of as the Benefactor. Often the Benefector was introduced to one in need by a mediator. The gift was then accepted by the recipient (client) who in his or her thankfulness and gratitude in turn extended the gift (grace) to others, and this in turn benefited the original giver. The recipient in many ways became a representative of the Benefactor to those in the Benefactors society. Coaching or mentoring towards what the Benefactor desired was often nurtured through the mediator to the recipient. It became a continual relationship between the three entities. In this unbroken circle, everyone was understood to benefit. In this sense, God works through Christ in us as we freely receive the gift and continue to give all of it to others as they are then introduced in the same way through the mediator to the father. Everything is freely given.

We often use the word “adopted” when describing our new relationship in Him. In the Greco Roman Empire adopted beings could not be disowned as natural born children could be. When you were “adopted in” you were guaranteed the new life promised to you by those that gave the pledge to adopt. You were an heir that could not be passed over in terms of inheritance. It was a new covenant that was cut for you. It was a free will reciprocal agreement even though it seemed like the party adopting had everything to lose and nothing to gain; but as we all know with children that isn’t the case. The blessing is reciprocal.

Baptism is a confirmation to lifelong allegiant faith, a way of life given to king Jesus. An entrance into a beautiful, joyful, reciprocal dance of grace but starts by putting to death “all” that you were. You are no longer your own but His, a new creation by which your very life is an image of His whom you belong. He is in you and your life is a temple that bears His name. Your very essence is to bear the light of Jesus and extend that gift to others. This is not of yourself but only in the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

In life you are now set apart to serve. The Hebrew word ‘abad (עבד) can be translated as “to work,” “to serve,” or “to worship.” This is the word that is used to describe the original mission for humankind.

In essence, through baptism, we return to our cosmic calling. In faith, we worship as we serve. All that we are, we are in Christ.

This article is an excerpt (Chapter 9) from Dr. Will Ryan’s book, This is the Way to Covenant Community.

Want Even More? Dive in here:

Who do you claim as father?

Posted by expedition44 on June 16, 2024

Luke, I am your father! Every 80’s and 90’s guy knows exactly the implications of this phrase. Today we live in a fatherless world. There are so many implications of this, but one of them is the Christian mainstream claiming things of the Lord, yet in actuality is far from the galaxy of their father. I would urge a return to covenant living.

“As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you will be the father of a multitude of nations.” Genesis 17:4 NASB

In Hebrew Av hamon goyim means Abraham would be the father of many, those inside and outside of his immediate family – the regathering of the lost nations (Deuteronomy 32). Today, Christians believe they are faithful to the same God, Yahweh; but if we would have lived during the time this sentiment was expressed to Abraham (the intended audience of the text) I doubt our modern-day actions or fruit would have been recognized as the kind of devotion or allegiance God was asking for. As I write this, Four Southern Baptist theologians and pastors intend to ask messengers to this year’s Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting to adopt the Nicene Creed as part of the denomination’s official faith statement and it begs the question, what does it look like in a modern world to fulfill what Yahweh asked of us?

According to Rabbi Shraga Freedman, “Even when non-Jewish nations recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the need to serve Him, they advance many distorted notions of what He expects of His creations. Throughout history, their warped perceptions of religious devotion have caused untold pain and suffering to myriads of innocent human beings.”[1]

At first contemplation you might realize that if you aren’t observant to the Torah then you certainly can’t claim Abraham as his spiritual father, and thus what His father Yahweh asked of Him and those to come. You aren’t of the same lineage. But Jesus also redefines a few things for us, and I am thankful for that!

Skip Moen interjects, “God promised that Abraham would become the father of many goyim, that is, the father of many who do not descend from his biological line. But this does not mean these goyim are free to make up their own religious practices. What it means is precisely what James said at the Jerusalem council in the first century. “For from ancient generations Moses has those who preach him in every city, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21). We must remember that the promise to Abraham is predicated upon a prior statement, namely, “Walk before Me, and be blameless.” It is hardly conceivable that walking before Abraham’s God is a matter of personal taste.” [2]

I have written a couple of books on the return to covenant practice. That doesn’t mean that all modern Christians should go back to observing the law, but it might carry some implications. I am saying quite clearly that modern day Christianity is a better picture of unfaithfulness than faithfulness. The primary mission of Jesus was to a lost and carnal world to be reconciled back to Yahweh. The religious leaders of His day had become the farthest from His father. I am not sure that has changed any today.

Jesus was observant. This is a call back to being holy, to leave everything on the beach having no other idols before you and completely follow the Lord. Today if you and your family are largely indistinguishable from those of the world you likely aren’t living by the covenant given. The God of Abraham well might be trying to get your attention by calling out your name and urging you to come back into the fold of his love compassion and mercy. Thankfully that calling is from Yahweh and not a “Darth Vader” father figure that has left this world lacking in so many ways. Return to what is TOV.

[1] Rabbi Shraga Freedman, Living Kiddush Hashem, p. 31.

[2] https://skipmoen.com/