Reconsidering Christophanic Possibilities in the Hebrew Scriptures

Posted by expedition44 on February 19, 2026

Angel of YHWH, Theophany, and Divine Council Motifs within an Ancient Near Eastern Context

Introduction

The question of whether the pre-incarnate Christ may be discerned within Israel’s Scriptures has occupied interpreters from the patristic period to the present. Classical Christian theology affirmed that the Son participates in divine self-revelation prior to the incarnation (cf. John 1:1–18; Col 1:15–17), while modern historical-critical approaches have urged caution against retrojecting later doctrinal developments onto earlier texts. The task, therefore, is not to force an anachronistic Christology onto the Hebrew Bible, but to ask whether its textual and theological patterns provide conceptual space for such a reading within a canonical and intertextual framework.

This study proposes that a constellation of phenomena—especially the figure of the malʾakh YHWH (“Angel of YHWH”), embodied theophanies, and divine council imagery—generated a conceptual grammar within Israelite religion that later Jewish and early Christian interpreters could develop into more explicit mediatorial or Logos-theologies. This is not advanced as a historical-critical certainty that “Jesus is explicitly present” in the Old Testament, but as a theologically and textually plausible reading grounded in the layered development of Scripture and its reception.

The Angel of YHWH and the Problem of Divine Agency

The figure designated as מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה (malʾakh YHWH) presents a persistent exegetical puzzle. While the term malʾakh ordinarily denotes a messenger, a number of passages collapse the distinction between messenger and sender in ways that exceed normal ANE emissary conventions.

In Genesis 16:7–13, the Angel of YHWH speaks to Hagar and is subsequently identified as YHWH himself: “So she called the name of YHWH who spoke to her, ‘You are El-roi.’”¹ The narrative neither corrects nor qualifies this identification. Similarly, in Exodus 3:2–6, the narrative begins with the Angel of YHWH appearing in the bush but quickly shifts to YHWH speaking directly, with Moses instructed to remove his sandals before the divine presence.²

Scholars have described this phenomenon as a form of “hypostatic agency”, in which the agent embodies the authority and presence of the sender.³ Yet, as Benjamin Sommer has argued, Israel’s theology also permitted a more fluid conception of divine embodiment, in which “God could be present in multiple bodies or forms simultaneously without compromising divine unity.”⁴

Within an ANE framework, royal emissaries could speak in the voice of the king; however, the biblical texts frequently intensify this pattern by attributing worship, divine titles, and covenantal authority directly to the Angel. As Margaret Barker notes, “the Great Angel traditions of Israel present a figure who is both distinct from and identified with YHWH.”⁵ This ambiguity creates a conceptual tension that later Jewish and Christian theology sought to articulate more precisely.

Theophany and Embodied Divine Presence

Closely related to the Angel of YHWH are theophanic narratives in which YHWH appears in visible, localized, and at times anthropomorphic form. Genesis 18 depicts YHWH appearing to Abraham as one among three visitors, yet speaking with singular divine authority.⁶ Exodus 24:9–11 describes Moses and the elders seeing “the God of Israel,” while Exodus 33:20 insists that no one may see God and live. Such tensions suggest differentiated modes of divine visibility rather than contradiction.

The Hebrew concept of כָּבוֹד (kābôd, “glory”) often denotes this visible manifestation. The Septuagint renders this as δόξα (doxa), a term later applied christologically in John 1:14. As Richard Bauckham observes, the New Testament’s claim that Jesus reveals the divine glory is not an innovation ex nihilo but a development rooted in Israel’s traditions of visible divine presence.⁷

From a Second Temple perspective, such manifestations were increasingly conceptualized through intermediary categories. Philo of Alexandria, for instance, describes the Logos as the “image of God” and mediator of divine revelation.⁸ While Philo’s framework is Hellenistic, it demonstrates that Jewish thought of the period could accommodate distinctions within divine manifestation without abandoning monotheism.

Divine Council Motifs and Plurality within Divine Identity

The Hebrew Bible contains a number of passages that reflect a divine council worldview. Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make humanity in our image”), Psalm 82 (“God stands in the council of El”), and 1 Kings 22:19 all depict YHWH in the midst of a heavenly assembly.

Such imagery parallels ANE conceptions of a high god presiding over a council of lesser divine beings, yet Israelite texts reconfigure this structure within a strict monotheistic framework. Mark S. Smith notes that Israelite religion exhibits “a monotheistic theology articulated through the language of an earlier polytheistic cultural matrix.”⁹

Within Second Temple Judaism, this conceptual framework expanded into discussions of exalted mediatorial figures—Wisdom (Prov 8), the Memra of the Targums, and angelic vice-regents such as Metatron. Alan Segal’s seminal study Two Powers in Heaven demonstrates that some strands of early Judaism entertained a “principal angelic figure who bore the divine name and exercised divine authority.”¹⁰

Early Christian Christology emerged within this environment. Larry Hurtado argues that devotion to Jesus as Kyrios represents “a mutation within Jewish monotheism,” rather than a departure from it.¹¹ The identification of Jesus with the divine name and functions attributed to YHWH suggests that early Christians interpreted him within these pre-existing categories of divine mediation.

Linguistic Considerations: Hebrew and Greek

The linguistic texture of the biblical text reinforces these theological dynamics. In Exodus 23:20–23, YHWH promises to send an angel “in whom is my Name.” The Hebrew phrase שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ (šĕmî bĕqirbô) implies not merely delegated authority but a sharing in divine identity.¹²

The Septuagint’s translation of YHWH as κύριος (kyrios) provided the linguistic bridge by which early Christians could confess Jesus as Lord while drawing directly on Israel’s Scriptures. As Bauckham argues, the application of kyrios to Jesus places him “within the unique identity of the one God of Israel.”¹³

Similarly, the New Testament’s use of λόγος (logos) in John 1 reflects both Jewish Wisdom traditions and Hellenistic philosophical vocabulary. James Dunn notes that the Logos Christology of John should be understood as “a re-expression of earlier Jewish ways of speaking about God’s self-expression in creation and revelation.”¹⁴

Patristic Reception: Early Christian Readings of Old Testament Theophanies

The early Church Fathers frequently interpreted Old Testament theophanies as manifestations of the pre-incarnate Christ. Justin Martyr argued that “the Word of God… appeared to Moses and to the other prophets in the form of fire and of an angel.”¹⁵ Irenaeus likewise maintained that “the Son, being present with his own handiwork from the beginning, revealed the Father to all.”¹⁶

These readings were not mere allegorical impositions but attempts to reconcile the scriptural witness to an unseen Father with narratives in which God is seen and heard. The Son, as Logos, became the mediating presence through whom God was encountered.

Modern scholarship may question the historical-critical validity of these interpretations, yet they testify to how early Christian communities—closer in time and culture to the biblical texts—understood the patterns of divine manifestation within Israel’s Scriptures.

Hermeneutical Synthesis

A responsible approach must hold together multiple interpretive layers:

First, the historical-critical layer situates each text within its ANE context and Israelite theology. Second, the Second Temple interpretive layer demonstrates how these texts were reread within Jewish traditions of divine mediation. Third, the early Christian layer reads these traditions christologically in light of the resurrection.

Rather than collapsing these perspectives into a single claim, a layered hermeneutic allows for both historical integrity and theological continuity. The Old Testament need not explicitly articulate Nicene Christology in order to provide the conceptual resources from which it later emerged.

Conclusion

The Angel of YHWH, theophanic manifestations, and divine council imagery together form a constellation of motifs that complicate any overly rigid conception of divine singularity in Israel’s Scriptures. While these texts do not explicitly identify Jesus of Nazareth, they generate a theological and linguistic framework in which early Christians plausibly discerned the presence of the pre-incarnate Logos.

To read these passages christologically is therefore not to impose a foreign structure upon them, but to participate in an interpretive trajectory already present within Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. Yet such readings must be offered with appropriate humility, recognizing the distinction between theological interpretation and historical demonstration.

Footnotes

Gen 16:13.
Exod 3:2–6.
John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 114–18.
Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 12–18.
Margaret Barker, The Great Angel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 23.
Gen 18:1–3.
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 239–45.
Philo, On Dreams 1.215.
Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 32.
Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 159–81.
Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 98–110.
Exod 23:21.
Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 182–87.
James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 213.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 60.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.20.7.

Bibliography

Primary Sources and Ancient Texts

The Hebrew Bible / Old Testament (BHS; BHQ editions)
Septuagint (LXX). Edited by Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart.
The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. Translated by Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich.
The Apostolic Fathers. Edited by Michael W. Holmes.
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho.
Philo of Alexandria. On the Creation; Allegorical Interpretation.
Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews.
Targum Onkelos and Targum Neofiti (for Memra traditions)
Ugaritic Texts (KTU 1.1–1.6 Baal Cycle)

Old Testament Theology and ANE Context

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
Walton, John H., and J. Harvey Walton. The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.
Walton, John H. The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2017.
Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Miller, Patrick D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.
Hallo, William W., and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds. The Context of Scripture. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002.

Divine Council and Heavenly Mediators

Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2015.
Heiser, Michael S. Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host. Bellingham: Lexham, 2018.
Parker, Simon B. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1997.
Cook, John J. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T. All the Glory of Adam. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Mach, Michael. Angels in Early Judaism. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992.

Angel of YHWH and Theophany Studies

Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Meier, John P. “Angel of the Lord.” Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:248–53.
Haggai, Mazor. “The Messenger of YHWH.” Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013): 1–16.
Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985.
Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.
Kugel, James L. The God of Old: Inside the Lost World of the Bible. New York: Free Press, 2003.

Second Temple Judaism and Intermediary Figures

Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven. Leiden: Brill, 1977.
Fletcher-Louis, Crispin. Jesus Monotheism Volume 1. Eugene: Cascade, 2015.
Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.
Orlov, Andrei. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
Collins, John J. Apocalyptic Imagination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.

New Testament Christology and Divine Identity

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Hurtado, Larry W. One God, One Lord. London: T&T Clark, 1988.
Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.
Bird, Michael F. Jesus the Eternal Son. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.
McGrath, James F. The Only True God. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

Logos Theology and Jewish Wisdom Traditions

Philo of Alexandria. On Dreams; On the Confusion of Tongues.
Winston, David. Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1985.
Boyarin, Daniel. The Jewish Gospels. New York: New Press, 2012.
Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making, esp. Wisdom Christology sections.
Witherington, Ben. Jesus the Sage. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

Patristic and Early Christian Interpretation

Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies.
Tertullian. Against Praxeas.
Origen. On First Principles.
Athanasius. On the Incarnation.
Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Hebrew and Greek Linguistic Resources

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (BDB).
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. HALOT.
Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT).
Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT).

Hermeneutics and Method

Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003–2009.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005.
Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016.
Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God. New York: HarperOne, 2013.

Balanced / Critical Voices (for methodological caution)

Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.
Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge, 2009.
Kugel, James L. How to Read the Bible. New York: Free Press, 2007.
McGrath, James F. The Only True God. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

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

Posted by expedition44 on February 15, 2026

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

1. The Historical Palimpsest of Valentine’s Day

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

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

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

2. Scripture and the Semantics of Love

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

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

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

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

3. Early Church and the Appropriation of Culture

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

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

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

4. Theological Reframing: Love as Witness

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

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

Conclusion: Love in Context

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

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

Discussion Questions

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

Bibliography

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

Seminary Discipleship

Posted by expedition44 on September 23, 2025

When you harmonize the gospels, you likely come to the conclusion that Jesus called the disciples 3x. The last time He gets very specific and asks them to leave everything on the beach, don’t look back, stay with Me completely and “walk” completely with Me. In our modern Western world this first century calling to discipleship seems almost impossible. I have spent my whole life challenging myself and other people to this level of discipleship, and I am just about convinced that in modern America people just aren’t willing. I have found one exception… seminary training. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with all seminary experiences but at The King’s Commission (TKC) we believe that this is the closest pathway to what first century discipleship under Jesus would have looked like. Study daily, be mentored, read, listen, discuss, dive deep into a community that is likeminded to experience the full breadth (completeness) of Jesus and the Church.

What a time it must have been, when Jesus shared his words and heart with his disciples (students) for the three years of his earthly ministry! They saw his compassionate healings, marveled at his miraculous power, listened to his word, saw his glory (Matt. 17:1-13), were humbled by his servant-leadership (Matt. 20:25-28, John 13:1-20). We believe you can still experience that same feeling with Jesus through TKC.

Seminary is something similar to those three years with Jesus. In many ways, of course, it is different. Jesus didn’t need to teach his disciples how to read Hebrew and Greek. He didn’t need to teach them post-canonical church history, because at the time there wasn’t any. And although he didn’t give letter grades, he regularly evaluated their progress. TKC has sought to stay as true to this dynamic model as possible.

Discipleship is about commitment, not to a program or a pattern but to the person of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps one of the Western world modern challenges we face is to see seminary throughout the context of discipleship rather than simply education. Seminary is more than academic training; it is a spiritual journey. The Latin “seminarium” or “seedbed”—captures the deeper purpose: cultivating hearts that bear spiritual fruit. Seminary, properly pursued, fosters a “taproot” in believers—vertical depth before horizontal spread—so lives become steadier, more rooted, and more fruit-bearing.

A testimony from one of the students that Dr. Ryan has discipled and now is regularly involved with in local church ministry, Paul Lazzaroni:

My own seminary experience (Paul) shifted my perspective. The draw to a deeper understanding of the scriptures came simply from a hunger to know Christ more. After a previous failed attempt at a well-known Bible College, 7 years later I was invited to apply at seminary. It wasn’t until I handed in some of my first course work that my understanding of seminary began to shift from simply retaining information to spiritual transformation. My advisor challenged me not just to retain facts but to articulate why I believed what I believed. That invitation to integrate intellect and devotion opened a deeper adoration for Christ. Many Western educational systems emphasize information retention; seminary (like Hebraic Torah study) invites transformation, not mere accumulation of facts.

For me, this wasn’t just a different way of seeing education, this was a journey down a path that the early disciples took with Jesus.

Hebraic culture treated study as a spiritual discipline linked to life and covenant faithfulness. Torah study functioned as devotion and formation, shaping how people lived before the LORD. From Eden through Sinai to Jesus, Scripture consistently calls for faithful allegiance expressed in obedience and transformed hearts. The word seminary itself is not nearly as old as the scriptures, but the heart behind the journey through seminary ties directly into the first and greatest commandment of Jesus “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ Mat 22:37

The word seminary (seminarium) means “seed bed”. Even our word semen finds its origins here. Semen without an egg to fertilize is a source of life that is seeking a host. Humankind is designed to replicate the source of life that heals, that restores, and that multiplies that which gives life, but the spirit of God needs a seed bed and Jesus himself consistently goes back to talking about the heart of the matter as though this is the seed bed of the human being.

Paul’s example in the New Testament reinforces this same type of spiritual journey. Despite his rigorous education as Saul, his encounter with Christ began a multi-year (14) process of spiritual formation (Acts 9; Galatians 1). Conversion was a beginning that required unlearning, relearning, and sustained growth. Seminary can be that structured season of deepening, where encounter and study mature into faithful living.

Over centuries, what ought to be a life-changing journey of spiritual study has sometimes become a path to prestige, income, or institutional advancement. From the establishment of the early church, there has been a slow evolution away from this type of devotion towards educational advancement. In the 15^th and 16^thcentury, the church experienced a large pivot deeper into the intellectual moving further away from the spiritual journey. This pivot began with a bold, spirit led move by Martin Luther to stand up against the hierarchical system that the Catholic Church had established, however much of what we still experience today is a war of the minds. The downfall of humanity began when we attempted to reason through all the things of life without the spirit of God. In doing so, we give up is the divine journey with Jesus himself as the teacher. When theological training serves personal gain rather than formation, the church loses its capacity to cultivate compassionate, faithful leaders—gardeners rather than dictators. Seminary must resist reducing theology to a résumé item; it should invite humility, compassion, and a lifelong devotion to learning and obedience.

For those of us who have had simply one encounter with Jesus, we know that it was a profound spiritual moment. My prayer would be that there was a flame that was lit. If you have yet to do so, seek out the fan that ignites that flame. Over the centuries, what was meant to be the most incredible journey of our lives by means of study, has transformed into hierarchical astuteness for the advancement of primarily worldly pursuits. This transformation of higher education has led to the creation of many learning systems that operate without spiritual context and in my opinion simultaneously void the presence and power of the spirit of God.

If seminary is understood as a seedbed for spiritual formation, it belongs to any disciple who wants to deepen devotion, understanding, and faithful practice—not only to those who pursue clerical office. It equips Christians to study Scripture faithfully (hermeneutics and exegesis), to integrate head and heart, and to live a long-haul obedience that reflects covenant faithfulness. This is the direct invitation from Jesus, the ancient of days, the word become flesh, the author and perfecter of life. Let us not waste our eternal invitation to follow in the dust of him. I pray the path of Yahweh draws many into this kind of lifelong study and devotion.

Written by Dr. Will Ryan and Paul Lazzaroni

time – treasure – talent – testimony

Posted by expedition44 on May 22, 2025

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION:

What does it look like to give all of yourself to Jesus?

Hebrews 13:5 – Let your way of life be free from the love of money, being content with what you have, for He Himself has said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.”

DISCUSSION QUESTION: How much do you give to the Lord?

In the classic Old Testament Hebraic mindset the answer should be, “all that you have been given.” In other words, everything is the Lord’s and should be given back to Him. You have simply been entrusted to the “assets” of the kingdom for a short time. This is the circular dance of grace. (Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament by David A. DeSilva)

DISCUSSION QUESTION: If anyone from the group understands the dance of grace based on patronage please explain it to your group. This can be found in my book “This is the way to covenant community” on Page 161.

In our western thinking this is likely where we get the original audience’s interpretation of Biblical giving wrong… thinking that God just requires a tithe (confused with OT passages), or that there are no strings attached to Grace.

Grace is free but it also might have some strings attached. To be clear, Grace is totally free, but if you’re going to follow the Lord then you should follow the Lord with all that you are and have been given and freely give back all that you are and have been endowed with- which to some sounds like attached strings.

To most Americans the idea that God wants everything doesn’t sit very well. What would alter calls sound like if we told people the whole story before we asked them to put their hand up! It even becomes more uncomfortable as Christian Americans when you ask somebody if they love money. Nearly every American does. Christian Americans are in a little bit of a wrestling match because they want to proclaim that they don’t love money; yet the giant mortgages, lifelong debt, and working around the clock every week say otherwise. It sure looks like we all love money, and that’s actually the implication of I Timothy 6:10.

The word “love of money” is philarguros, literally, “a friend of silver.” This is a Greek verb that was used in the scriptural context to describe brothers and sisters of one body (which we like to call the church in present day language -that’s up for argument though.) Today, it would seem that money is root of more church problems and family dynamics than anything else I can think of. That’s why TOV doesn’t want much to do with it. It didn’t seem like Jesus wanted much to do with money and His version of first century “church” didn’t either. Have you ever considered the idea that Judas was the money keeper and the one-time Jesus was asked to pay for something it didn’t come from that bag, but from coins out of a fish his Father provided? What could that imply? Jesus didn’t own a church building but occasionally visited the temple which He does refer to as His father’s house.

Essentially the Hebraic way of living is that your complete life is a gift. This gift is a reciprocal dance mirroring what God has given you. Total humility, complete giving back of what you have been given, and utter devotion to your Father.

In the hands of the follower of the Way, contentment is a sign of trust in the grace and mercy of God. From the biblical point of view, the only reason a man or woman can entertain contentment is because God is good. His provision is sufficient. Greed leads away from Him and towards the love of things of the world separating us from the Love of Christ.

Is the love of money or money itself the root of evil? I don’t really think it matters… what matters is that God wants all of us to mirror all of what God has given us. And from the biblical authors mindset money had very little to do with any of that kind of thinking. It is the posture of the heart.

DISCUSSION QUESTION: How does God view your money? Does He even want it? Is the Money the World’s? But don’t we need money? Is it a “necessary evil?” of the world? How does it belong in a Jesus kingdom?

DISCUSSION QUESTION: We often say, TOV isn’t looking for a tithe. Discuss why a more Biblical perspective isn’t centered around “money or serving” but on deeper devotion of your “whole” person.

TOV ACTION NEEDS FOR YOUR DISCUSSION:

BECOME A MONTHLY “PATRON” PARTNER – Discuss how this mindset is different than a tithe

Sometimes we don’t give much to the donation boxes and it is hard to bless people when need arises. We want to bless generously. Consider gifting monthly so that we can buy people groceries, feed the hungry & homeless, and take a financial strain off a family for a season. There aren’t any tov salaries, mortgage payments or utilities to pay… all of your giving goes right to an ACTS 2 need. Together we can make a better kingdom investment. Right now We want to buy a car for another anonymous family and need $2500 that we don’t have.
We need car donations; we have a mechanic that will fix things. And we can give away these cars or sell them on the marketplace. If you know of someone selling a car ask them to donate it.

Giving: You don’t need to “make time or space” for God if all of your time, treasure and talents (sacred space) are His. In the same regard, you don’t need to consider giving a percentage of your financial resources if you are of the mindset that it is all His and you are merely the Spirit led steward of it.

Some have chosen to underwrite the few costs we have as “patron” partners. If you would like to dedicate a regular monthly amount, please do so here:
http://www.venmo.com/u/expedition44 or simply @expedition44

To set up recurring payments on Venmo, follow these steps

Open the Venmo app and log in to your account.
Access the “Settings” menu and find the “Payments” or “Payment Methods” option.
Look for the “Recurring Payments” or “Automatic Payments” section and select it.
Choose the frequency and dates for the payment (monthly, weekly, or bi-weekly).
Confirm the payment amount and select “Schedule Payment”

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.