Q: I have a question regarding Israel. Would Israelites still be considered God’s chosen people or would that have changed with Jesus’s atoning works?
Yes, Israel was (and is) called God’s chosen people in Scripture—but what that means and how we understand it after Jesus is really important to clarify.
When God called Israel His “chosen people” in the Old Testament, it wasn’t primarily a statement about salvation. Rather, Israel was chosen (commissioned) for a vocation—to be a light to the nations (see Exodus 19:5–6; Deuteronomy 7:6; Isaiah 49:6). (You might see this as a regaining of the nations if you follow a Deuteronomy 32 worldview.) God gave them the Law (Torah), the covenants, and the promises, not as an end in themselves, but so that through them, the nations of the world would come to know and worship Yahweh. Paul puts it like this in Romans 3:2—that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. In a sense, this was the calling of Adam and Eve and when they fall short, God commissions Israel in the same calling, nation that would be called commissioned as a holy royal priesthood to represent Yahweh to the rest of the fallen world.
But Israel consistently struggled to live out this calling. From nearly the beginning of the story the nation failed to honor Yahweh (golden calf incident) and instead of the entire nation (all 12 tribes) representing the Lord as priests, God adapted the plan and then called just the Levites to be His representatives as priests first to Israel in hopes of then commissioning the entire nation of Israel to the original plan and act as ambassadors of Yahweh. The Old Testament tells a story of covenant, failure, judgment, and hope for restoration. Israel continued to falter. They gave up their theocracy of one God – Yahweh to choose to be led by an earthly king. They drifted farther and farther from the plan until God finally hands them over to their own demise, the exile was a key turning point. Even after the return of the exile to Jerusalem, most scholars believe Israel never returned to the LORD. God longed for Israel to return to the true redemption and the coming of God’s kingdom. Unfortunately, Israel continued to fall short and not seem to live out their calling or commissioning.
Jesus enters the narrative with a similar mission. He doesn’t reject Israel’s story—He steps into it. He comes first to “the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24), calling them back to their original vocation. He chooses twelve disciples, clearly symbolizing a reconstitution of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is not incidental—it’s Jesus claiming to be the one who restores and redefines Israel around Himself.
And here’s the key: Jesus is the faithful Israelite. He does what Israel failed to do. He keeps the covenant perfectly, walks in radical obedience, and fulfills Israel’s mission. He is the true Israel (see Matthew 2:15 where Hosea’s words originally spoken about Israel—”out of Egypt I called my son”—are applied to Jesus).
This is why Paul will later say in Galatians 3:16 that the promises were given not to “seeds” (plural) but to one “seed,” who is Christ. In other words, the inheritance of Israel is fulfilled in Jesus—and only those who are “in Him” share in that inheritance. That phrase—”in Christ”—is the dominant identity marker for believers in the New Testament. If Jesus is the true Israel, then those united to Him (Jew or Gentile) are the true people of God.
This point becomes even clearer when we revisit God’s original promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” This statement is often lifted out of its covenantal context and applied to modern nations or political support for Israel. However, the Hebrew grammar and narrative context show that the promise was made to Abram himself (the singular “you” in Hebrew, ʾotkha), not to a future geopolitical nation. God’s intention was not to privilege one ethnic group above all others but to initiate a redemptive mission through one man and his descendants—a mission that would culminate in Christ. The blessing is vocational, not nationalistic. Abram is chosen in order to be a blessing, that through him “all the families of the earth will be blessed.”
The apostle Paul interprets this precisely in Galatians 3:16, identifying the “seed” (zeraʿ) of Abraham as Christ Himself. This means that the covenant promise—“I will bless those who bless you”—finds its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus. The “you” now applies to Abraham’s true heir, the Messiah. Those who bless Him—who honor, trust, and align themselves with Jesus—receive the blessing of God; those who reject Him cut themselves off from that blessing. In this way, the Abrahamic covenant points forward to Christ as the locus of divine favor. To bless Abraham’s seed is to embrace the redemptive mission of God revealed in Jesus, and through faith in Him, we become participants in that same blessing.
Paul says Abraham was justified before circumcision (Rom. 4), showing that faith, not ethnicity, is the marker of God’s covenant people. He adds in Romans 2:28–29 that a true Jew is one inwardly, whose heart is circumcised by the Spirit. And in Galatians 3:28 he writes: “There is neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Ephesians 2 expands this beautifully. Paul says that Jesus has broken down the dividing wall and made one new humanity—no longer Jew and Gentile, but one body. Peter echoes this in 1 Peter 2, where he applies all the covenant titles once reserved for Israel (royal priesthood, holy nation, people of God) to the church made up of both Jews and Gentiles.
Paul also uses the metaphor of an olive tree in Romans 11: some natural branches (ethnic Israelites) were broken off because of unbelief, and wild branches (Gentiles) were grafted in. But it’s one tree. There aren’t two peoples of God. There is one new covenant community—those who are in Christ. It’s not about replacing Israel, but about fulfillment—where Jews and Gentiles together form the one people of God in Christ.
This helps clarify what Paul means in Romans 11:26 when he says, “all Israel will be saved.” We don’t believe he’s referring to a future mass conversion of ethnic Jews or suggesting two separate salvation paths. Rather, he’s speaking of the fullness of God’s people: both believing Jews and Gentiles who are part of the one tree through faith in the Messiah. This fits with Paul’s logic throughout Romans and with his statement in Galatians 6:16 that the church is “the Israel of God.”
God has always worked through covenants—and those covenants are centered on trust and faithfulness, not ethnicity alone. From the beginning, covenant relationship with God required loyal love. Even under the Mosaic covenant, Israel’s inclusion was contingent on obedience and faithfulness to Yahweh (Deut 28). Being born into Israel didn’t guarantee blessing—relationship and trust did. (Israelites were never automatically “saved.”) If there was any sense of salvation in the Old Testament it would be under the same “qualifications” as in the New Testament. What God was asking and promising for the faithful doesn’t change from the Old Covenants to the New Covenant.
The New Testament affirms this. While many modern Jews are physical descendants of Abraham, Paul is clear that physical descent is not enough. In Romans 9:6–8, he writes:
“For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants… it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.”
Paul emphasizes that covenant identity is now grounded in faith—just as it was with Abraham. As he puts it in Galatians 3:7:
“Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.”
So when we speak of the “people of God” today, we are not referring to a physical nation-state or ethnic group. We are speaking of those “in Christ”—those joined to the faithful Israelite, Jesus.
The modern nation-state of Israel is not the covenant people of the Bible. -If this is a new consideration for you, you might consider reading this article. Most of its citizens do not follow the Mosaic covenant, and the majority have rejected Jesus as Messiah. According to the New Testament, that places them outside of the renewed covenant family—not because of their ancestry, but because God’s covenant has always been about faith.
This doesn’t mean God has abandoned ethnic Jews. Paul says in Romans 11 that he hopes some of his fellow Jews will be provoked to faith. And many Messianic Jews (Jewish believers in Jesus) are part of the body of Christ. But the boundary marker is no longer ethnicity or Torah observance—it is faith in Jesus.
All of this leads us to say: the true Israel (or Israelite) is Jesus. And those “in Him,” whether Jew or Gentile, are heirs to the promises, the calling, and the covenant. God is not partial (and never has been, even with Israel as many gentiles were welcome to join them, a mixed multitude – Hebrew and gentile – left Egypt in the Exodus becoming “Israel”, and some even found themselves in the lineage of Christ Himself) —He welcomes all who come to Him through Christ.
We also need to think about our family in Christ as those that are allegiant to the New Covenant calling rather than those that are nationalistically / inter-nationalistically aligned with groups that subtly “claim to be allied with God” but are not living out the Way of Jesus or bearing fruit for the Kingdom of Christ. There is only one kingdom of Christ, and you can’t serve two masters. For generations many have claimed to be part of Israel or want to be somehow grafted into salvation but haven’t followed the devotion that God has desired and look nothing like Jesus or act in a way worthy of bearing His image. Jesus seemed to paint this picture vividly and make this very clear in the sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
This is not replacement theology.1 God has not rejected Israel and replaced her with or even outside of the church. Rather, the church is the fulfillment of Israel’s story (and Adam and Eve’s story for that matter) —expanded to include all nations through union with Jesus, the faithful Israelite, this was the plan of redemption that “all nations”, or everyone was offerred from the beginning.The promises of God have not been scrapped or reassigned; they find their “yes and amen” in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). The covenant people of God have always been marked by faith and loyalty to Him—and in the new covenant, that means allegiance and devotion to Yahweh through Jesus accepting and claiming that victory and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit as a sign of the holy royal priesthood. Jew and Gentile together form the one new man, the reconstituted people of God.
written by Will Ryan Th.D. and Matt Mouzakis Th.D.
Replacement theology, doctrine holding that Christians have replaced the Jewish people as the chosen people of God or as the heirs of the divine-human covenant described in the Hebrew Bible. The theology is also referred to as supersessionism, in which Christianity is thought to have superseded Judaism. It is closely related to fulfillment theology, which holds that Christianity has fulfilled the divine promises signaled in the Hebrew Bible. These ideas appear to be suggested in some of the earliest Christian texts, such as writings of St. Paul the Apostle, and subsequent Christian theologians have strengthened the opposition of Judaism and Christianity in ways that have informed relations between Christians and Jews. In the 20th century many Christian theologians and even church doctrines replaced replacement theology with more-nuanced or inclusive models that support more-amicable interreligious relations.
Michal (/mɪˈxɑːl/; Hebrew: מִיכַל) was, was the younger daughter of King Saul and the first wife of David (1 Samuel 18:20–27) where it is said in 1 Samuel 18:20 and 18:28 that Michal loved David. The narrative does not indicate whether this is reciprocated. 1 Her story is shrouded in transparency and strange allegiance creating a mystery of interpretation. What can we glean from her part of the story? Why is she significant in the pages of the text?
DAVID’S FAME AND SAUL’S JEALOUSY
David’s early success was marked by his victory over Goliath, the Philistine giant,detailed in 1 Samuel 17, where David declares, “The LORD, who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear, will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine” (1 Samuel 17:37). His triumph brought him immediate fame and favor in the eyes of the people and King Saul.
However, David’s rising popularity soon became a source of intense jealousy for Saul. We read in 1 Samuel 18:7-9 “the women sang out: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.’ And Saul was furious and resented this song. ‘They have ascribed tens of thousands to David,’ he said, ‘but only thousands to me. What more can he have but the kingdom?’ And from that day forward, Saul kept a jealous eye on David.”
David was 15 years old when he fought Goliath and shortly after was wed and found himself fleeing Saul all within three short years.2
THE MARRIAGE
The story begins to go south by the time Saul invited David to marry Michal. The text tells us that Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” (1 Sa 18:20–21a). But when David was offered a bride, he replied, “I am a poor and lightly esteemed man”, meaning that he was unable to provide a bride price, especially one of a king’s daughter. Saul then advised him that no bride price was required except for the foreskins of 100 Philistines, to which David then “answered” by killing 200 Philistines. In the ancient world this would have been a “double portion” sentiment essentially expressing that the dowry was far greater than the price asked and also communicating a message that he was able and willing. It was often viewed in a client benefactor relationship as the returning of a reciprocal gestured gift. But I want you to also consider the implications of the text. This is a 16–17-year-old boy (likely with a forming army) who kills 200 philistines.
Can you deconstruct any traditional (David was a man after God’s own heart) thoughts you might have on David to just take a step back and unbiasedly consider the repercussions of this? David was anointed to bring back Israel to God. Saul represents the world. David is quickly enticed by the praises of the world, the flesh, and the kingship that he will do nearly anything to continue his rise to power. I doubt his interest in the wedding to Michal was much more than a political step. We don’t seem to see any inkling of more than that in the text. But consider what David did, at the request of Saul, the worldly king who at this point is positioned in the text as one being opposite of God, kills 200 philistines and brings back part of their genitals.
There is nothing in the text to hint that God thought this was a good idea, there is no divine sanction given; we are simply reading the narrative of what took place. You are always being mentored by someone and here we see David begin to be mentored by the ways of the world. Some even go as far to say that King Saul was demon possessed at this time.3 You have to ask the question then, is this cold-blooded murder? Is it an act of war and permissible in the ancient world? Why would David do this? The evident answer is it was a way of personally solidifying the throne rather than relying on God’s timing. The reality of the situation was likely that Each foreskin represents a life taken. Not by natural disaster, chaos or an act of God, not even by war, or accident. Each life was taken by David, on the jealous whim of King Saul.
By the time David is only 18 years old, Saul turns on David throwing the Javelin at him causing David to flee and rally some men for protection. Michal chooses the welfare of David over the wishes of her father. When Saul’s messengers search for David in order to kill him, Michal sends them away while pretending he was ill and laid up in bed. She lets David down through a window and hides teraphim in his bed as a ruse. J. Cheryl Exum points out that although she risked her life in helping him, after he leaves the court, he makes no attempt to contact her.4 This might imply a one-sided love, but we would have to deduce that as the text doesn’t clearly say one way or another. It could also be an act to protect her so that she would not have been implicated or even killed. We also don’t know why she helped David or her heart’s intentions; the text doesn’t give us that. I don’t know that at this point in the story we should be deducing much. There don’t seem to be any great biblical takeaways, it is merely character development, but don’t miss that. I used to think that David’s heart was “pure” at the beginning but after really thinking through the early parts of this story and particularly the 200 foreskins and likely trying to assume a place in the kingdom for himself, I am no longer convinced. On the other hand, we all make mistakes, but hopefully that doesn’t entail the murder of 200 people.
DAVID ALIGNS WITH THE PHILISTINES
What is even more strange than this is that within a short period of time from this instance, David sought refuge among the Philistines, specifically with Achish, the king of Gath. In 1 Samuel 27, David and his men settled in Ziklag, a town given to him by Achish. David lived among the Philistines for a year and four months, during which he conducted raids against various groups while maintaining the pretense of loyalty to Achish.
Some have tried to argue that David killed 200 Philistines as some kind of holy sanction in the name of the LORD to drive out and annihilate them. I don’t think this is a faithful view. The text doesn’t make any effort to suggest such a “smile” from God and the over whelming commands of YHWH would not line up with this kind of violence or murder particularly in form of a payment or dowry. You also have to ask the question would God be aligned with the Philistines?
The Philistines played a crucial role in the events leading to Saul’s downfall. In 1 Samuel 28-31, the Philistines gathered their forces to fight against Israel. David, still under the guise of a Philistine ally, was initially expected to join the battle. However, the Philistine commanders, wary of David’s potential betrayal, refused to allow him to fight alongside them (1 Samuel 29:4-7).
The battle culminated in a disastrous defeat for Israel at Mount Gilboa, where Saul and his sons, including Jonathan, were killed. This defeat paved the way for David’s ascension to the throne of Israel. If you are paying attention, you are going to figure out that David aided the Philistines in fighting against Israel so that he could assume the throne of Israel. In other words, he put Himself in alliance with those that God had commanded clearly not to be in alliance with. Again, if you can allow yourself to read unbiasedly, it sure seems like David is making decisions away from the heart of God and violating several of God’s commands rather than being one who aligns with them.
REMARRIAGE
The plot thickens, while David was in hiding Saul gave Michal as a wife to Palti, son of Laish. Again, the Biblical narrative doesn’t tell us much. Was this an act to blot out David from Israel as if he were dead? David will also go on to take on several other wives (which should also allude to some thigs in your plot and character analysis), but when David becomes king of Judah and Ish-bosheth (Michal’s brother, and Saul’s son) is king of Israel, David demands her return to him in return for peace between them. Ish-bosheth complied, despite the public protests of Palti (2 Samuel 3:13–16.) Again, the text doesn’t give us a lot. Is this David wanting his first love back or more of a power play? Robert Alter observes that by stressing that he had paid the requested bride price, David makes a legal argument as a political calculation to reinforce his legitimacy as a member of the royal house. Alter notes the contrast between David’s measured negotiations and Palti’s public grief.5 It appears Michal had a real relationship with the second husband, as he weeps bitterly as she’s taken away (2 Sam. 3:12). We don’t hear from her again until that fateful day when the Ark came into Jerusalem. But this could account for bitterness. Is she a woman in captivity?
This is where things get interesting. I have said it for many years; David is a wild card. Most people think of him as a guy with a heart after God, but as I have made the point subsequentially that isn’t biblically accurate. John Walton has a book coming out on this topic. I am not sure I could trust David, or who knows, maybe he would be my best friend. It’s messy. It is complicated. I have no idea. He loved the Lord but seemed so far away at times. He did great things for the kingdom but was nearly solely responsible for Israel’s demise and set the table for Israel completing turning from the Lord. He had been given everything necessary to do great things for the Lord but seemed to fall hugely short. The rest of the story of David and Michal continues to show this sort of messiness begging the question, what exactly is going on.
ARK HISTORY
When David brought the ark in the first time, he did so in complete ignorance. Here is the danger when every generation does not go back to the word of God and study fresh without consideration of the traditions established by the previous generation. The ark had been carted around the countryside off and on and housed for many years so that a generation arose that had no idea that God had legislated transporting the ark. In 1 Chron. 15:12, David admits his error – notice the words, “we did not seek the Lord according to the rule.” Wow, that is a Geraldo episode!
IT IS COMPLICATED
After Michal was returned to David, she criticized him for dancing in an undignified manner, as he brought the Ark of the Covenant to the newly captured Jerusalem in a religious procession (2 Samuel 6:14–22). But if you dive into the context of 2 Samuel 6 this is very complicated. We need some prior context. 2 Samuel 6:3-8 and 1 Chronicles 13:7-11 tell us that when the Ark of the Covenant was being brought back from the land of the Philistines Uzzah drove the cart on which the ark was placed when David sought to bring it up to Jerusalem. When the oxen stumbled, making the ark tilt, Uzzah steadied the ark with his hand, in direct violation of the divine law (Numbers 4:15), and he was immediately killed by the Lord for his error. This seems harsh, but that’s a different article. David, displeased because Yahweh had killed Uzzah,6 called the place where this occurred “Perez-uzzah”, which means “to burst out against Uzzah” according to 2 Samuel 6:8 and 1 Chronicles 13:11. That is quite a statement against the Lord. Consider that for a moment and I will remind you that it was a public profession. Can you imagine a “heart after God’s heart” making that kind of a statement?
David was afraid to bring the ark any further (after making a statement about God like that I would be too) and placed it in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for what ended up being only three months. The Lord then blessed Obed-edom and David went and brought up the ark of God into the city of David. Was David just in it for the blessings? At this point you should be wondering what exactly is happening between David and God. God kills Uzzah, David is mad, David drops off the Ark, God blesses them, David then wants it back and goes and gets it; then does one of his famous naked dances in the street and his wife gets upset.
“DANCING” WITH GOD
There is a word play in Hebrew that might describe David dancing like a mad man and the implication would be that he was mad at God. David danced before the Lord. The Hebrew word used for before is lipeni. This is often used as a preposition, but it can also be used as an adjective. As a preposition, it would simply mean that David danced before God. But as an adjective, it would mean that David danced in God’s presence. Actually, it would be more correct to say that David danced with God. But In Hebrew this is a contranym, meaning it can be a dance or a tussle. I say this because the Hebrew word for dance that is used here, it is karar. The common word for dance in Hebrew is mawkhole, but that is not used here. In fact, karar is used only two times in the Hebrew Bible, both in this passage. In extra-Biblical sources karar does not mean to dance at all, it means to spin around like a top and pictured as children fighting in ancient times. karar in its Semitic root means one who is possessed. In verse 20, we learn his wife Michal was upset with David because he danced naked. The word naked or uncovered however is the word nigelah in Hebrew, in English we would say to become “unhinged.” Are you following me? The Hebrew words are specific in the text and are purposeful. The implication is he was acting like a fighting child. This could be good or bad. Was he actually “dancing” beautifully with the Lord? If so, why the strange use of Hebrew words and the play on them? The Hebrew verbiage seems to imply a negative childish act of fighting with God or being mad in the way that he danced.
DAVID’S DRESS OR NACKEDNESS
Michal accuses him of going around “half-naked.” The Hebrew word is the passive form of גילה gi-lay, which is נגלה nig-la, and means to be revealed. Her meaning in 2 Sam. 6:20 seems to be “to expose oneself.” Was it a naked dance? But we need to understand grammatical voices in the text as a texture of interpretation. This is an accurate account of what Michal said, but not necessarily an accurate account of what David actually did. Particularly because the text itself says that he was clothed.
Michal may have been just in criticizing David. Her words are accurate. David was not behaving in a kingly fashion, and she accused him of taking a sexual overtone in the way he showed himself. You might read into the text an accusation of pride here. But in a way she was correct, this was not a “kingly” gesture, and it may not have been portrayed as a “Godly” gesture to some. In light of what we have discovered, interpreting this as any kind of a “God honoring” dance seems far-fetched, but that is what David claims it was.
THE EPHOD
The ephod David wore was a garment usually reserved for priests and those ministering before the Lord.7 As David led the procession of the ark into the city, he laid aside the royal garments and worshiped the Lord, in ecstatic joy. This is complicated. David wasn’t a priest, although all of Israel was supposed to have been priests. Is this a slap in the face or a returning to the divine plan? In some ways Michal and others might have even wondered if God would strike him down for going from wearing a priest’s ephod to being nearly naked, especially knowing what he did in terms of naming the place of Uzzah’s death. This is reminiscent of a controversial super bowl half time show of modern America. Israel knew how to party, and this could have been construed many different ways.
The text tells us that “David danced before the Lord with all his might” (2 Sam. 6:14). But this could be interpreted several different ways. It doesn’t say that is what the Lord thought or received it as. It is more like a narrator at a parade, or a restating of what David said. Michal condemned David for dressing or undressing in such a common fashion and lowering himself to dance and rejoice with the common people as the ark was being brought into Jerusalem. Was she right? Was she simply embarrassed or could she have been spiritually concerned? Is there any way this could have been an act of humility on David’s part?
FORESHADOWS
Some have made the point that perhaps he was attempting to be a nobody in his nakedness. Was he acting in pride or humility? Sometimes that is a fine line. Was Michal in alignment with God or worried about her own reputation? Whatever your thoughts, there is an element of the dance that foreshadows Jesus. David was humble to dance unlike the perceived character of the world’s expectations for a king. Jesus also in humility, did not meet the world’s expectations for a king. Perhaps in the same mindset, David knew that “poor in spirit” was the way he needed to approach God. God is the one he needed to honor, not himself. It is also worth considering that the priests were supposed to be the image of humility before the Lord and David in stripping down to nearly nothing was showing his complete transparent humility before Israel and the Lord. This could also be a foreshadow of Christ’s ultimate act of humility wearing nearly the same thing to the cross.
When later questioned by Michal David’s response is interesting, “It was before the Lord … and I will celebrate before the Lord. I will make myself yet more contemptible than this, and I will be abased in your eyes. But by the female servants of whom you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor” (2 Sam. 6:21-22). Was his dance an act of pride, humility, or madness? He seems to get quite offensive with Michal, especially if he then withholds offspring from her. I will remind you that such dancing or leaping, seems to be a posture of the heart affirmed by Jesus (Luke 6:22, 23). I bring this up because as we question, we should be reminded that Jesus came to clarify and set several records straight. However, the context of Luke 6 doesn’t seem to be pointing towards David either, so I am not sure that applying it is a faithful hermeneutic.
MICHAL AND THE WINDOW
Saul had little inkling for anything Godly. Maybe Michal didn’t either. But perhaps she has lost any passion to truly seek to know God. The procession to bring the sacred box, called the ark, to Jerusalem was a very joyful event and much like the procession for a bride on her wedding day. On a groom’s wedding day, it was accustomed for a man to dance in front of the bride. He may be an upstanding man; but at the wedding, he was happy for people to laugh with him. On that day, he desired no honor for himself, he desired only that the bride should receive honor. This also might give us some implications to the foreshadowing of Christ as the Bride of the church which was intended to have been Israel.8
DAVID REBUKES MICHAL
I want to ask a challenging question for your deep consideration. Does the Bible actually tell us that the Lord was pleased by David’s dance? In the next chapter Nathan starts by telling David that the Lord is “with Him”, but then Nathan gets a word from the Lord that seems contrary and the Lord doesn’t sound pleased, in fact David is downright reprimanded by the WORD OF THE LORD. But David’s responsive prayer seems very humble in reply. OHHHHHH This back and forth….
David rebuked Michal in the Bible for criticizing his exuberant dancing before the Lord, perhaps emphasizing his devotion to God over royal propriety, or was it possibly a holy disgust? Could Michal actually be the voice (picture) of one that is holy, and the lack of children shows the tribulation of Israel before God? Either way, this incident further strained their relationship, and the Bible notes that Michal remained childless until her death. 9 While some interpret this as a divine punishment for her judgment of David’s worship, I don’t think that is the case or the nature of God. It is more likely that David, in his anger, withheld himself from her sexually, especially considering his other options. King David had several wives, including Michal, Abigail of Carmel, Ahinoam of Jezreel, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah, as well as concubines. The estrangement between Michal and David, rooted in their differing perspectives on loyalty to God and the monarchy, ultimately led to their childlessness and the end of Saul’s lineage.
Let’s consider for a moment that the barrenness was a message from God. If your theology finds yourself believing David was pure in his actions and Michal was not in alignment with God or David but rather represents the world in this story, then her barrenness might also be significant as understanding foreshadowing to Christ. If the world is against Christ, then perhaps they are made barren, which means to no longer produce life… Choose Jesus or choose death. That might be an interesting implication of the text to those unbelieving of Jesus as the Messiah, which ironically was near the same cultural audience several hundred years later. Would barrenness be seen as then a punishment from God? That might be theologically problematic if you believe God is only capable of what is good. It is also interesting that Michal is not described as being beautiful (when other brides sometimes are), though Rabbinic tradition holds that she was of “entrancing beauty.”10
It is also worth noting that from this time on the Levites facilitated the worship of the nation of Israel from the days of King David to the days of Nehemiah in the temple with musical instruments and singing but not dancing according to Numbers 1:48-54, 8:15; 1 Chronicles 23:1-6; Nehemiah 10:39, 11:22. Does this carry any implications?
CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS:
First of all, I don’t want to shape your conclusion but provide a basis of better interpretation. I am not spoon-feeding babies here.
This story is ugly in so many ways. But it didn’t have to be. This is why I am so conflicted with David and his character. What if, instead of rebuking her, he loved her? What if he sought to bring healing to her bitter heart? It is the kindness of the Lord that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). While I love David’s zeal, I see a little bit of pride and childishness in his response to his wife.11 But then again, what if we are really missing the big picture? What if God was smiling on David because his heart had changed in the dance off or wrestling match. Could the composure of David’s prayer in the next chapter finally show him bringing a heart of repentance before the Lord?
Michal remained barren until the end of her life. But I think David could have brought healing to her wounded heart. Traditionally we hear things like David had a heart after God and danced before the Lord and God was pleased, but the text doesn’t actually say or even imply anything close to that upon more careful reading.
Lastly, we are told not to judge, but we are supposed to study the word, test the spirit, and act to bear fruit. What can we learn transparently from this text? And herein is the hope for us: If God can extend love and grace to a man like David – if God can establish the kingdom of Jesus Christ through the merciless murder of 200 Philistine men and boys – then the depth of His grace is boundless. And the same grace that fell to David is available to us all, through the Son of David, the Lord Jesus Christ. Praise be to God.
In 1 Samuel 18:26, David is “pleased … to become the king’s son-in-law” but we are not told whether he was pleased to have married Michal. See Cohen, M., “The Transparency of Saul”, European Judaism, volume 39, no. 1, 2006, for a comparison of the transparent presentation of Saul and the opaqueness of David’s character in 1 Samuel. ↩︎
When I was in High school attending a rather large evangelical free church, we had some missionaries come in to train us on street evangelism. The idea was to memorize a step plan for salvation that we could easily regurgitate on the streets. The core of it was based on convincing someone that according to Adams sin we had been separated from God and that only by professing with our mouth and praying the sinner’s prayer could we escape eternal torment and damnation. As there is arguably some truth to that statement, the presentation not only created some terrible theological implications of the gospel message (both to those presenting and those being presented to) but also wasn’t necessarily the best Biblical framework. Of course, as “good” kids we all just went along with it, at least initially. As you can imagine this led to some really awkward conversations in the street and left several students wondering if this is what Christianity is all about whether they really wanted to be part of it. The following year a different but similar group came essentially “training” us to try to do the same thing evangelizing our hometown. But then something happened, this time (likely based on their previous poor experience) several of the students started to transparently challenge the process. I remember it almost as if it was the enslaved rebels of Star Wars questioning the empirical ideals. Questions like, “where does it actually say this in the Bible?” and “Do you really think this is the action that the text had in mind when it was written?” Another student said, “I don’t think I want anything to do with a plan like this, I didn’t come to Jesus to force my friends into submission.” I could go on and on. The training group couldn’t really answer them with any kind of logical explanations, and I was quite disheartened by the whole thing. The night resulted in half the youth group leaving early bailing on street evangelism to go out for ice cream; while the other half (some likely afraid of their parent’s repercussions if they left) continued with the group to evangelize. I am sure there was a small percentage of the “good” kids that convinced themselves this was what good Christian kids should do. I was also skeptical of Billy Graham “crusades” as a kid. And before I continue, I want to say that even though I still don’t entirely agree with these crusades and this kind of step plan evangelistic plans I do believe God uses it in powerful ways. I know many that came to faith this way and then over the course of time found a better theology. But my heart desires to say, let’s start with a better theology!
This youth group interaction was a monumental occurrence in my life that made me start questioning why Christians do what they do and whether the Bible actually said things like the church traditionally claimed. Instead of driving me away from Christianity, as some thought questioning the faith would do, it drove me towards a lifelong beautiful “expedition” towards understanding the incredible word of God and His nature. I don’t know of anyone who has had such joy in the journey. This is my love language, and I pray that it becomes yours.
UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS WITH FRAMING SEPERATION FROM GOD THEOLOGY
The central question for your consideration is does the Bible actually say and teach what we have so often regurgitated that “sin has separated us from God?” I will start by saying any time you here a doctrine and you can’t find one verse that clearly states what the doctrine is attempting to “make the gospel say,” the best advice might be to run. If the intent of God was to give us some crafty 4 step plan of salvation wouldn’t that be clearly laid out somewhere in the text? Yet in the “ROMANS ROAD” plan of salvation we have to jump all over Romans back and forth to try to understand the so called laid out plan. Similarly, if a doctrine states something simply in one sentence such as “sin separates us from God” shouldn’t the Bible also state it similarly if it is true? That would make sense. Yet something as engrained in our head such as the statement, “sin separates us from God” doesn’t ever seem to be stated that way anywhere in the text. We deduce it. That doesn’t make it wrong or untrue, it just raises some hermeneutic red flags that should cause you the need or desire to examine it.
What verses then tell us that we are separated from God by Sin?1 Here are the best ones coming straight from those that hold this type of framework:
Are there others? Well, if you think these are a stretch, the others that people claim support separation you’re going to have an even harder time with. These are the closest verses that the Bible has that state we are separated from God by our sin. If you google the question the first link will be “100 verses by open Bible Info”. I will say that almost none of them actually state we are separated from God2, but such a simple search certainly shows that someone thinks or has been traditionally conditioned to tell us that.3
The only verse above that actually comes close to simply stating that sin has separated us from God is Isaiah 59:2. At first reading I can see this, however when you start applying textures of interpretation you see the verse differently. Basic laws of any hermeneutic design say, don’t ever make a doctrine off of one verse. In other words, if there is only one verse that seems to say something that can’t be found elsewhere in the pages of the Bible it likely doesn’t say what you mean what you think. If it did there would be supporting verses. SO then theologically you should be asking the question, if this verse seems to say this, but there isn’t another verse that says it, could there be a different meaning for this text? This kind of thinking leads to a better or more faithful interpretation and overall agreement in your theological lens. John Walton interprets Isaiah 59 as highlighting the necessity of a savior due to humanity’s iniquities and moral failures, yep, we need that!4 The Hebrew word used here that is interpreted as the English word “separated” is בָּדל (badal.) It is the same word used in Genesis one in the creation narrative used to describe the separation of the light, and water, day and night. Notice in these cases it isn’t a chasm that separates those things, and it is part of God’s order. In fact, the truth is that it is opposite to that way of thinking, day touches night beautifully. It is the most beautiful part of the day that we call sunrise and sunset. Where the land meets water is a beach! We all LOVE the beach. We want to dwell in beaches. We vacation on beaches. Do you see my point? To frame this word as division or a chasm that can’t be overcome isn’t Biblical. Sometimes beauty comes when the peace meets the chaos and that is often where God dwells in scripture. The Biblical picture is actually a “slice of heaven”, the most beautiful thing the world has seen. CS Lewis spent a great deal of time dwelling on this concept.5 Do you see what I am saying? Badal also is a form of setting something apart. You know the other Hebrew word that is used to say that? Kadosh – Holy. The context of Isaiah 59 is actually a word play in the form of a contranym. So yes, in one sense God is holy and sin is the opposite of Holiness, but God isn’t separated from us by that, He actually dwells close to it. The other problem with framing God so far away is that it is giving sin way too much power over you. I am not willing to give sin that kind of leverage or title in my life. God finds people in some of the darkest places. When you run away you think you are far from Him, but the Biblical truth is that God is right there for you. If you truly believe in the omnipresent of God than you have to take this theological perspective. To say there is a chasm between a person sinning and God doesn’t agree with the doctrine of omnipresence.
Furthermore, Isaiah 56 is a prophetic indictment to a people immersed in injustice, oppression, and violence. The “separation” here isn’t God walking away. It’s people who have closed their ears to God’s voice. It’s spiritual disconnection, not divine abandonment. There’s a difference between feeling distant from God and God actually being distant. God never leaves.6
Secondly, once we give our life to Jesus, sin doesn’t simply disappear. According to most plans of salvation logically that is what would make sense. If we are separated by God and we say the magic words than sin is no longer in our lives (the chasm would logically be bridged never to be empty again) but if sin truly separates, then it creates a theology that logically would mean that we would continually be in need of repetitive salvation prayers to bridge this gap over and over. We know that isn’t the case. It creates a poor theological framework. What is true is that we can make a heart and mind choice to live for Him and even though we are still in part of the earthly physical world we are free from the endearing result of sin which is death both in the physical life and eternally. That is grace. To actually believe in this great chasm, minimizes or does away with a Biblical concept of covenant grace. So, to frame sin as a separation from God logically and ontologically doesn’t make sense or follow the premise of the biblical story of God’s redemption of us. It misses the mark.
Furthermore, saying that sin has separated us from God frames the character of God in a way that doesn’t agree with the Bible. It leads us to thinks that from birth we naturally were being judged by the sin of those before us. Yet the Bible is clear that we are only responsible before the Lord for our own actions and not the actions of others. Yes, we are affected by others (perhaps even for generations) but that is slightly different. Affected and responsibility or having to earn something as a result of someone else’s past are different issues. This gets more into the original sin conversation than it does sin separation; but the two are certainly connected. If you haven’t watched or listened to the x44 series on original sin you should do that. Saying that we are always separated from God by sin assumes that when we “sin” God must turn his face or step away from us. That is not true. The overarching message of the Bible is that God does not leave us or forsake us. I wrote an article on this. Do you believe the nature of God gets angry and wrathful when you sin. Do you think God wants to smite you because you sin? That sounds monstrous doesn’t it, yet many peoples theology believes that. Yet God’s love for us couldn’t be more opposite of thinking that way. When we sin, God more than anything, grieves for us and wants to draw us closer to Him into His hand of providence. When we continue to sin God will eventually open his hand of protection and allow us to reap what we have sown. This is actually a more Biblical definition of wrath. We get what we had coming, God no longer protects. (Israel in exile is the archetypical picture of this, but God has always desired and welcomed them back with open arms, thus the prodigal son story and many more. There is no separation or barrier from God’s perspective.) When we think that God is separated from us by sin, we begin to believe that God loves us when we do good and leaves us when we don’t. Or perhaps we think that when we are in devotion to Him, He blesses us and when we are separated by sin He is done with us and can no longer use us for the kingdom. Those in the book of Job asked this question as a retribution principle and God was clear to answer at the end of the story that that is not His character. We have a series on that too. I am glad that isn’t the case. No one would have ever been used by God. Does God just leave us the second we screw up?
DOES SEPARATION OF GOD CHANGE AT THE CROSS?
This is a great question. If you are following along and thinking through the texts, you might realize that in the Old Covenant there seem to be examples of separation from God even though the text never really says it so simply. (As I previously made the point, it could be deduced from the text.) Romans 8 seems to support a notion that in the Old Covenant before the cross we were separated from God. That could be why the cloud came and went from Israel’s trail. It could also show the veil between the holy of holies and the need for a priest. But then when Christ comes as our once and for all great high priest and the veil is torn at the cross, we become the temple of the holy spirit to which the separation is broken. In this sense there MIGHT have been a separation between God and the people in the Old Testament but Jesus (not necessarily the cross itself) removed any sense of being separated. The only problem with holding a view that there was separation in the Old Testament is that the text never actually says it. If the text really intended us to take away that notion wouldn’t one of the 39 books clearly state that? Yet they don’t, it has to be deduced which then makes it a theology of humankind. That should always be problematic to your theology and possibly a dangerous place to dwell. Another great question that then follows suite would be, “Is there a separation for the unbeliever?” I don’t think so. If you take the view that in the OT there was a separation between God and humanity it would be with everyone, not just unbelievers. The cloud and the veil support that theology. If that foreshadows the NT then it would take on the same ideology. Neither believer nor unbeliever are separated then. They are all close to God, God is never far off. This may sound different than what you have always been told but there isn’t anything that would disagree with it; in fact, it takes on a far better lens of agreement within all the texts. I can’t think of one verse that would actually make this a difficult view to hold.
PERHAPS IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A SEPARATION BY SIN
Even though the Bible doesn’t seem to have the framework or state specifically that we are separated from God by sin wouldn’t that make sense. We have certainly always been told that -right? But since the Bible doesn’t say it, we would be left to deduce it. Is that faithful hermeneutics? Well, it can be, if you believe in systematic theology, you are already doing that sort of thing regularly. But Biblical theology questions those practices. In one sense it seems to follow logic that in a relationship if one side falls out of love or becomes distanced you might say they feel are even separated. We say that in broken marriages that grow apart all the time without micro analyzing it. But that doesn’t work biblically with God as one side of the relationship. We are told and shown this multiple times in the Bible. Jesus is the bride of Christ and even though the groom (sometimes viewed as Israel in the OT) was unfaithful, the bride remains completely faithful and therefore is not separated. The separation came from Israel creating a reason to be distanced but God Himself still never leaves or forsakes them in covenant love. Some would say God divorces Israel but that leaves some deep theological problems that need to be sorted if you go that way. The more accurate Biblical mosaic and unending motif of redemption is that despite the unfaithfulness of Israel God is near with open arms. To this design, even though someone distances themselves from God, (and in our human broken relationships) the same is not true of the character of God. God never distances himself from the lost, the divergent saved, the broken, the lost, or the unfaithful… God is always near (which is what the doctrine of omnipresence means, which is also a theology of humanity as long as we are making the statement.) It is important to have consistent theology. I have said many times that the reformed perspective of believing God is omnipresent and also believing that we can be separated from God doesn’t follow a logical pattern. The two views are at odds; they can’t both hold true. If you feel or sense that God is far away or you have severed your relationship, that is what you feel, but the reality and major thematic covenantal truth is that God hasn’t left you. This is true as a believer or unbeliever. God is always near; there is not a chasm between you and God.
UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLICAL TRUTH AND THE BETTER THEOLOGY
The Bible never once states that we are separated from God by sin, but it states over and over that nothing can separate us from God. And Jesus solidifies this regularly if there were any doubt.
Romans 8:38-39: “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Something tells me you have sang loud “NOTHING CAN SEPRATE US” in the Your Love Never Fails song by Chris Quilala of Jesus Culture. Remember that? We sing it so confidently but then believe sin has formed a chasm? How does that work? You can’t sing a song like this and still theologically think that way.
Some say God can’t be in the presence of Evil. That isn’t true either. God clearly sees evil. He is involved, engaged, and working redemption in real time and space. The idea that God literally can’t be near sin is a misreading of the text, and a dangerous concept or doctrine.7
Jesus makes all things clear
Jesus shows us that God wasn’t separated from the sinful, that His heart was moved towards a deeper connection with those in sin than perhaps anyone else. Think about the relationship that Christ had with those in sin. How can you be separated and be in deep relationship at the same time? You can’t. Those two things are opposites. Yet Jesus had deep relationships and was NOT separated by sin to those dwelling in it. He drew a line on the ground for the woman in adultery turning back those who took offense, He touched and healed the unclean before they claimed any relationship with the father. He loved them before they had any semblance of knowing Him. He routinely shared a table with sinners and invited them to be in His sacred space. In other words, he didn’t build chasms between Himself and the sinful, rather He walked hand and hand with them shepherding them to Him. He entreated those that were immersed even drowning in their sin. That doesn’t sound like a cliff of separation to me. It sounds the opposite. It sounds and looks like relational love.
“Come to me, all who are weary and burdened…” (Matt. 11:28)
And when Jesus went to the cross, He entered fully into the consequence and depth of human sin, not to separate us from God, but to reveal how far God was willing to go to stay with us.8
CONSIDERING SIN
This article isn’t meant to diminish sin. Sin is the opposite of God, but as I have made the case isn’t impenetrable. Sin is infectious, it hurts, it cuts, it wounds, it severs, it destroys and requires spiritual healing. Make no doubt there. Continually giving into sin is the road to death both physically in this life now and also to come in an eschatological sense (already not yet). Sin masks our identity in Christ and creates worldly thoughts of shame, pride, fear, insecurity, hurt, doubt, trauma, and so much more. Sin hurts not only you but those in relationship and covenant with you. Sin can severe your ability to walk in the spiritual prosperity that God has for you. Sin inhibits the freedom that God gives. Sin is the opposite of the peace that God manifests in us. Jesus came to take away the sin of the world. I am in no way diminishing the effects of sin on this world.
Dr. Matt and I are writing a book on this, so I am going to keep the more theological section here brief, but I also feel like it needs to be shown in this article. The effect of Jesus’s death concerning humanity’s sins in 1 John (specifically but also every other reference) is to cleanse (kathatizo), or to remove (airo) sin, not to appease or satisfy. Thus, Jesus’ death as an “atoning sacrifice” functions as an expiation of sin and not the propitiation of God. This is exactly what is happening in the Day of Atonement, and it is the image John is using in the entirety of 1 John. There is not one image of God needing to be appeased in 1 John to forgive sin or cleanse.
What does “for our sins” mean? “For” can have many meanings. But Greek is specific whereas English is not. There are 4 words with 4 distinct meanings (with some minor overlap) in Greek for “for”:
Anti: this for that (substitution or exchange)
Eye for (anti) an eye, tooth for (anti) a tooth (Matt 5:38)
“Do not repay anyone evil [in exchange] for (anti) evil” (Rom 12:17)
Dia: Because of or on account of; from
one agent acting against another agent or on behalf of another
Peri: Concerning, about (sometimes overlaps with Dia)
Conveying general information about something
Huper:in some entity’s interest: for, on behalf of, for the sake of,
the moving cause or reason: because of, for the sake of, for.
In 1 John 4:10 and 2:2 we see peri being used for “for”, besides Mark 10:45 (anti “this for that”- substitution or exchange)9 all of the other New Testament uses of “died for us”, “died for me”, and “died for our sins” and its cognates are huper -about a benefit, or as the Creed above said, “on our behalf”.10 I’m not saying that Jesus did not do something in our place (although I would be careful with using the term substitution doctrinally) but he did this on our behalf- for a benefit or to rescue us (but not from the Father).
Those 3 verses (Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) are all of the references to “propitiation” in the NT. Hebrews 2:17 also uses a variation of this word and in context is about what the high priest does with the purification offering on the Day of Atonement. We’ve seen that all these mean expiations or show Jesus as the “mercy seat” when interpreted in the proper context of the Day of Atonement.
We do not see that the scapegoat or the purification offering had to be killed to propitiate God’s wrath. To interpret these in this way is going beyond the text and meaning of the Day of Atonement shadow. In other word’s framing the text that was is reading into it, it isn’t a faithful hermeneutic. The primary question about the Day of Atonement goats is whether God is being acted upon (changed?) or is sin being acted upon. As we saw with expiation, sin is the force being acted upon. But with propitiation, God is being acted upon. Yet, the noun’s use in the New Testament is about Jesus being the place where we connect with God because of his High Priestly and expiating function. This makes sense of Paul’s most popular phrase for salvation: “In Him”- Jesus is where (the place- Mercy Seat) we meet with God.
There are plenty of other corresponding verses that all agree with this methodology such as Leviticus 16; Romans 3:21-26, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10; Heb 13:11-12; Matt 27:28-31; Heb 9:14-28; Heb 10:8-17; 1 John 3:5-8; John 1:29; Col 2:14; 2 Cor 5:21.
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOU?
If you believe sin separates you from God, then every time you fall short or miss the mark, you’ll think or believe that God’s love has left or betrayed you or has turned His face from you. That is such a poor image of God’s character and against everything the Bible says about His great redemption story. It is counter to almost every thematic motif in the Bible. Have you been harboring the lie that keeps you from experiencing what God wants most for you? Are you wallowing in your mess because you haven’t claimed redemption? God is always with you.
God’s grace for your sin is stronger than your worst nightmare or anything the world can dish out.
In the image of the Exodus there was actually no substitution or exchange but that Jesus’ life was costly and his death and blood saves us from Death. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSqtE13v5k for a full word study on “For us” and all its uses in the NT. ↩︎
Some of the most prominent sacrificial “For Us” verses in the NT that use huper (not anti): Rom 5:6-8; 1 Cor 15:3-5; 2 Cor 15:14-15; Gal 1:3-4; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:1-2; 1 Thes 5: 9-10; Titus 2:11-14; Heb 2:9-11. ↩︎
“The Abomination of desolation” is a phrase from the Book of Daniel describing the Greek (Seleucid Empire) king Antiochus IV Epiphanes that desecrated the Second Temple by erecting an altar to Zeus and sacrificing swine, an unclean animal according to Jewish law, on the altar in 167 BC. [1] Partially in response, the Jewish Maccabees went to war (revolt) with the Seleucid Empire and in 164 BC, the Maccabees captured Jerusalem. [2] The subsequent cleansing of the temple and rededication of the altar on 25 Kislev is the source of the festival of Hanukkah. [3] In doing so they paraded through the town displaying their pomp and splendor over their enemies. The Hasmonean dynasty then survived 103 years before yielding to the Herodian dynasty in 37 BC. From that year on, at the beginning of Passover (the day the Jews believed Yahweh gave them freedom) the Roman governor of Judea, would march into the city from the West (THROUGH THE “GREAT” GATE) with full military might on a mighty war horse. His parade was a show of force to remind the people of Jerusalem that Rome was in charge, and every magistrate wanted to be treated like a god. [4]
But here we have Jesus coming through the East Gate. That is the lowly gate that shepherds of animals used. This is where the Passover lambs would have been ushered in later this week. It is readily seen that Jesus’ triumph is very different from the Maccabees; Jesus wields the cross, not the sword, as His triumphal weapon, just as his regality is ensconced upon a lowly donkey rather than a mighty warhorse.
The Maccabees were aimed at liberating Jews from the oppressive nations, focused upon the pollution of the temple by the Greeks but Jesus would be setting the table that the nations might be regained through a different kind of spiritual cleansing.
The triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, continues to take on a similar image of palms and laudatory praise, echoing the entry of the Maccabees into Jerusalem following their triumph over the Seleucids. [5] The Maccabees entered Jerusalem “with a chorus of praise and the waving of palm branches” [6]. All of this, of course, in the context of a grand temple cleansing – just as Jesus’ entry will be followed by a temple cleansing of His own the day following His triumphal entry. In Antiquity, the palm is one of the trees identified as the Sacred Tree connecting heaven, represented by the crown of the tree, and earth, the base of the trunk. [7] The palm became so closely associated with victory in ancient Roman culture that the Latin word palma could be used as a metonym for “victory” and was a sign of any kind of victory or redemption of a people. [8] They connected the “gods” with victory.
Why a donkey and the coats thing? Well, they both are tied to royal procession. This is a story of the contranyms of the kingdom of Jesus. In 2 Kings 9:13, a man named Jehu is anointed king of Israel and his supporters spread their cloaks on his path, shouting “Jehu is king!” This becomes a regular act from that point forward. In the ancient Middle Eastern world, leaders rode horses if they rode to war, but donkeys came in peace. In 1 Kings 1:33, it mentions Solomon riding a donkey on the day he was recognized as the new king of Israel.
By some estimates, a population of perhaps a few hundred thousand could swell to 2-3 million during Passover. This helps explain several dynamics, most notably why the city’s leadership (both the Romans and the temple establishment) might be more on edge. [9]
FULFILLMENT OF SCRIPTURE
Jesus’ dramatic entry into Jerusalem is included in all four of the canonical Gospels but it varies slightly leaving us the need to harmonize the gospels. In Matthew, quotes Zechariah 9:9, which says:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
This is a scratch my head moment theologically and my take on this may challenge your views of inspiration. Was Jesus engineering the fulfillment of scripture? Was Matthew doing a bit “too much” to try to align with a well-known scriptural prophecy? I do not often align with Bart Ehrman, but in this case, I do as he notes, “Hebrew poetry was often organized conceptually rather than by rhyme scheme. This was the case for the poem from Zechariah, in which the idea in the penultimate line is repeated in the last line with different words. Because the author of Matthew doesn’t understand this, he interprets the verse as saying that the king will ride both on a donkey and a colt, which is what he has Jesus do. He doesn’t explain the gymnastics one would have to do to straddle two animals this way, but our imaginations can fill in the details.” [10] So is that what Jesus did? He straddled two animals to fulfill scripture. It seems that way, but who knows, maybe one was good for Jesus.*
*(On a side note, I often like to point out that we have the best tools of any time in History to best interpret scripture. Everything is at our fingertips. We often see the disciples not understanding Jesus and today we have the whole lens of scripture which they didn’t have, linguistic tools for the Biblical languages they wouldn’t even know how to dream of, and hundreds of commentaries from the best scholars the world has known. We “should” understand far better than they did when it comes to seeing things like this.)
But there is something else that I want to point out here of more significance. Matthew 21:5 quotes Zechariah but leaves out one line, “triumphant and victorious is he.” Isn’t that interesting? It should continue to point you towards the backward kingdom dynamics of Jesus as power under not over. This was quite strategic.
Luke and Mark’s narratives give very similar versions of the story, compared to Matthew’s (though without the two animals). However, in both Mark and Luke (but not Matthew), after his triumphal entry, Jesus goes to the Temple and looks around before leaving and going out to Bethany. This is interesting because in all three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ next action will be to cleanse the Temple which I am sure you have made the connection to mirroring the history of the Maccabees above. Why the second cleansing? Who was Jesus’ worst enemy? It surprisingly wasn’t Rome; it was the Jewish religious leaders. Consider the need for Jesus to cleanse the “religion” that “defiled” the temple. When you sit back and consider this, Jesus might be making quite a statement. Is He making the point that what the pharisees have done in the temple is as defiling to His father as the abomination of Desolation? So, then you would ask the question is the desolation of religion connected with what they are sowing and will be reaped in 70AD. Are we reading too much into the textual analogy to the Maccabees? Is this a faithful to the text interpretation? Jesus is known for how he regularly crafts inference. Furthermore, we only read Jesus weeping twice and this is one of them. Which one is He weeping over? The context definitely fits the ensuing destruction of 70AD but perhaps both are at liberty within the textures of interpretation.
As Jesus approached Jerusalem, He was acutely aware of the city’s impending destruction and the spiritual blindness of its inhabitants. This event takes place shortly after the crowd had joyfully welcomed Him as the Messiah, laying down palm branches and cloaks in His path. Despite the outward celebration, Jesus knew that the hearts of many were far from understanding His true mission. [11]
Hosanna
Psalm 118:25 says, “Save us (Hosanna), we beseech you, O Lord!” In one sense, the crowd is asking Jesus to save them. In another parallel sense, it’s calling him “savior.” Perhaps both. The strange thing is that the greater portion of the crowd doesn’t seem to have the mind of Christ. That is one of the reasons why Jesus weeps later. They are looking for a war monger savior to meet Herod on the streets and victoriously and triumphantly overcome Rome. You better believe they wanted Jesus to call down the angels of war or open the earth and swallow the Roman army. I am sure fire from heaven would have appeased them too. But that wasn’t the way of Jesus. Some believe that’s why a few days later perhaps the same crowd will be saying, “Crucify Him or take Him away” Others believe the same people weren’t in that “kangaroo courtroom” and it didn’t really matter.
Most of the people were just looking for a show while they were in town and Jesus probably also wept because he wasn’t into that, and He still isn’t.
The next thing they chant – “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!” – is also from Psalm 118, this time verse 26. Luke has the crowds say “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” This accords both with Jesus as king and agrees with Luke 2:14, which John also says, and with what the angels proclaim to the shepherds when they announce Jesus’ birth: “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace on earth to those with whom he is pleased!” But what is interesting is the rest of Psalm 118. If you have never read it, well that may influence your thoughts a bit on this.
Hosanna meant they were looking for savior. “It is, however, possible that in the case of someone like Judas, if he had previously been a political zealot, that this entry signaled to him that Jesus would perhaps take over things in Jerusalem, and the cleansing of the temple (Matthew 21:12–13) might well have been interpreted as a symbolic gesture suggesting Jesus would clean house. But then when Jesus reiterates, he came to die, not to start a coup, this must have crushed the hopes of anyone with zealot inclinations about kicking out the Romans. Perhaps that is why Judas does what he does at the end of the week.” [12]
WHAT IS THE TRIUMPHANT ENTRY?
In their book The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’s Final Days in Jerusalem, John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg write “What we often call the triumphal entry was actually an anti-imperial, anti-triumphal one, a deliberate lampoon of the conquering emperor entering a city on horseback through gates opened in abject submission.” [13]
Ian Paul Says it like this, “This is a different kind of king to any you’ve met before. And the reason for that is that the journey up to Jerusalem is not a journey to power and glory, but (as Paul makes very clear in Phil 2.5–11) it is a journey down in obedience to death. Jesus does not come to conquer the city; he comes to be conquered, and in this great reversal to win an even more profound victory. This is why he brings peace: he has turned us from enemies of God to friends through his death. This is why he brings praise and joy: because his death and resurrection have dealt with the things which separate us from God and from one another. This is the power he offers: power to know forgiveness and peace of mind.” [14]
There is a lot going on here. Jesus is acting out the prophecies that the people recognize as pointing to a Messiah, but the prophecy seems to change. Perhaps the prophets read a bit too far into the vision they were given or maybe the failures of the religious Jews changed the conditional covenant offered. Your overall theology for the lens of scripture is going to influence your thoughts here.
The Triumphal entry is CERTAINLY the coronation of the coming king and His kingdom. But it’s also a picture of the rest of the world being so far away from the heart and kingdom that Jesus was offering, and perhaps quite a statement about how far the religion of His day has turned from the Kingdom that He is ushering in.
Lust, Johan (2001). “Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel. The Tamid and the Abomination of Desolation”. In Collins, John Joseph; Flint, Peter W. (eds.). The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Vol. 2. BRILL.
Doran, Robert (2016). “Resistance and Revolt. The Case of the Maccabees.”. In Collins, John J.; Manning, J. G. (eds.). Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East: In the Crucible of Empire. Brill. pp. 175–178, 186–187.
Josephus: The Essential Works, copyright 1994. Kregal Publications Grand Rapids, MI 49501.
I have written a trifecta of posts on edification recently: POST 1POST 2POST 3
One of the basic tenets of our faith walk is work. Work was intended to be a beautiful relational covenant between us and the LORD. At the fall in the garden it turned to toil and Christ set the standard to redeem and reconcile it back to Him through work itself. Through our free will choices we are offered to work back into covenant with Him. The reciprocal dance of grace I describe in my book This is the way to covenant community describes some of the mindset that it takes to return to this circle of grace.
In the edification texts Philippians 2:12 becomes paramount: work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.What does that mean? Let’s put the fear and trembling on the shelf for a minute and focus on the work.
In Greek the word is ergon (noun) and ergazomai (verb). That is where we get our English word ergonomics from. Work ethic is a belief that work and diligence have a moral benefit and an inherent ability, virtue or value to strengthen character and individual abilities.[1] Desire or determination to work serves as the foundation for values centered on the importance of work or industrious work. Social ingrainment of this value is considered to enhance character through hard work that is respective to an individual’s field of work.[2]
We have the ability to shape in some ways who we are by our work.
In ancient Greece, work was seen as a burden, and their term for it, ponos, shared its root with the Latin word poena, signifying sorrow. In Hebrew, work was associated with toil, representing the laborious act of extracting sustenance from the challenging earth.[3][4]
I will challenge you with a lens you may have ever considered though. In our world, “work” always leads back to the father. God introduced us to work, and God’s handiwork is seen in every aspect of creation. But too often we forget that God’s covenant is still at work in every moment and every detail of His Creation (John 5:17). Since work is an extension of the active God, there is no discrepancy between “faith” and “works.” [5] One is simply a reflection of the other. “Work” was intended to be lived out in a sense of the Hebrew avodah, the harmony of partnered effort, service and worship. If your work isn’t working to return to avodah then it is void and leads only to toilsome emptiness.
So what does it mean to work this out? We can’t work for our salvation, but we can work from it. We aren’t saved by our good works (Eph. 2:8-9), but we are saved for good works (Eph. 2:10). This is the sense in which Paul uses the term. Salvation is spoken of in multiple senses in the NT: justification, sanctification, and glorification. [6] It is ongoing, a journey, an expedition that you aren’t saved from but are saved for. It isn’t a line on the sand to attain to. Your work is God’s calling to you to demonstrate His sovereignty in your life, His character in your actions, His holiness in your choices. You are the manifestation of his image. So, work it out carefully. It isn’t a get fit quick scheme, it is a recipe for life.
What about the fear and trembling part? Well, the reformed camp wants to see wrath here. Something like Chaim Bentorah describes as -“At first reading, it seems we are to serve the Lord with fear, that is we must be cautious and very careful because if we blow it, God will crush us with His thumb.” [7] I don’t see that and neither does he. What I can say for sure is that this isn’t a phrase to make you constantly earn your keep in the kingdom or sit around trying to determine once saved always saved theology. If you stuck there, my best advice would be to move forward. In theology whenever one text doesn’t seem to be clear the general rule is to ask what other similar texts say. This should lead to textual agreement.
I can’t say it any better, so here is where Chaim takes us: Psalms 2:11: “Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling (Ra’ad).”
To fear God is to show respect for His position and the role He plays as the creator of the Universe. So we serve the Lord in recognition of his position as God. Sometimes we take our service for God lightly, like it is a favor for an old buddy. When we serve God we must always keep in mind His position as the creator of the universe and if he asks some service from us, it is an honor and a privilege and a service we take very seriously, with all our hearts. To be chosen to serve the God of the universe should bring us joy and cause us to tremble. Is that to tremble with fear. Maybe, we do not want to fail the God we love so we fear we will not live up to the job. But you know that word ra’ad is a trembling alright but it may not have to be fear. The idea behind ra’ad is losing control. If you lose control of your body, it may tremble. But there are other forms of losing control. Ra’ad can be losing control of your will, that is giving control of your will to God. Thus if you serve the Lord out of respect for His office as God you will rejoice for you need not fear failure if you are yielding your will and strength to Him, that is giving Him complete control over the task you are performing for Him.
When you think about trembling in this context it is beautiful. It is the sense you get when you work out a muscle so much that it begins to tremble. It’s that hurt that feels so good because it means your there! Have you ever felt that in your covenant circles? What it feels like to pour into people in your life so hard that it results in trembling before the lord? Have you ever felt the radiance of the sovereign Jesus shining down on you so brightly that you could just simply stand back and take in the moment? Thats the kind of work that returns us to Eden and beyond.
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 frequentlyidolatry 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
Today was a life milestone. I visited the home of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have dreamed of this since I was young. As I would love to tell you everything I know about them, I think I will keep this to a brief introduction.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, also called the Qumran Caves Scrolls, are a set of ancient Jewish manuscripts (some original biblical texts) from the Second Temple period. They were discovered over a period of 10 years, between 1946 and 1956, at the Qumran Caves near Ein Feshkha in the West Bank, on the northern shore of the Dead Sea. These date back to the third century BCE.[1]
The Shrine of the Book was built as a repository for the first seven scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947. The unique white dome embodies the lids of the jars in which the first scrolls were found. This symbolic building, a kind of sanctuary intended to express profound spiritual meaning, is considered an international landmark of modern architecture. Designed by American Jewish architects Armand P. Bartos and Frederic J. Kiesler, it was dedicated in an impressive ceremony on April 20, 1965.
The contrast between the white dome and the black wall alongside it alludes to the tension evident in the scrolls between the spiritual world of the “Sons of Light” (as the Judean Desert sectarians called themselves) and the “Sons of Darkness” (the sect’s enemies). The corridor leading into the Shrine resembles a cave, recalling the site where the ancient manuscripts were discovered. [12]
2017 marks the 70th anniversary of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Long story short, in late 1947 a young Bedouin boy tossed a stone into a cave, heard the clink of breaking pottery, and would later scramble in to find the tattered remains of ancient scrolls from the centuries leading up to and after the Common Era. If this modern story of ancient discoveries is new to you, you’ve got to ask a very important question. Why does any of this matter today?
These are the oldest Biblical manuscripts that we have and therefore have made us consider the texts of our later translations of the Bible. [2] Today I visited the Shrine of the Book Museum in Jerusalem where the Dead Sea Scrolls and fragments are located and are now mostly the property and heritage of Judaism.[4] There are 981 different manuscripts (discovered in 1946/1947 and in 1956) from 11 caves,[5] in Qumran in the eastern Judaean Desert in the West Bank.[6] Archaeologists have long associated the scrolls with the ancient Jewish sect known as the Essenes, although some recent interpretations have challenged this connection and argue that priests in Jerusalem or other unknown Jewish groups wrote the scrolls.[7][8]
Most of the scrolls are in Hebrew, with some written in Aramaic and Greek.[9] The texts are written on parchment, some on papyrus, and one on copper.[10] The scrolls cover a wide range of topics and genres. The biblical scrolls include texts from every book of the Old Testament, with the possible exception of Esther. Other scrolls are Jewish sectarian writings, administrative documents, deeds of sale, and even divorce and marriage records. Despite the name, the majority of the scrolls are preserved as fragments, small scraps of what were once larger scrolls and documents. While some scrolls are several feet long, many smaller fragments are no larger than a fingertip. To date, more than 25,000 fragments have been discovered, and extensive work has gone into combining, preserving, translating, and studying these various fragments.[11]
The Dead Sea Scrolls shed light on the period between Alexander the Great’s conquest of Palestine in 332 BCE through the Great Revolt, which ended in 73 CE, with an emphasis on the period from the Maccabean Revolt (168–164 BCE) through the turn of the century. However, in order to fully comprehend the Qumran sect, the reasons for its establishment, and its unique character, one must study Judaism and Jews in the Second Temple Period. It is essential to understand the political realities, external influences, and theology of the time. The Second Temple period, or Second Commonwealth, began in 538 BCE with a declaration by Cyrus the Great, king of Persia and Media, that the Jews could return to the Land of Israel and rebuild their Temple. The Temple and the city of Jerusalem were rebuilt by the year 515 BCE, and, in contrast to the First Commonwealth, the high priest became the secular as well as religious authority. This system of government lasted into the Hasmonean period and became an object of protest in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as in other literature of the period. [13]
The scrolls gave historians great insight into the ancient forms of these languages, and they also changed the way scholars studied the Old Testament. For example, the scroll with the most complete version of the book of Psalms had about 40 psalms, including three that were previously unknown. One of these unknown psalms was a “plea for deliverance,” which made note of “evil incarnation.” The Dead Sea Scrolls provide evidence of the diversity of religious thought in early Judaism and the Hebrew Bible’s text development. They revealed the psalms were once sequenced in a different order. This was interesting to scholars because the texts had long been so uniform, and seeing flexibility with the wording and organization was stunning. Few people, however, were able to read and analyze the texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls were long hidden away until they were “liberated” in the 1990s. [14] Later that year, the Biblical Archaeology Society was able to publish the “Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls”, after an intervention of the Israeli government and the IAA.[15] In 1991 Emanuel Tov was appointed as the chairman of the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation, and publication of the scrolls followed in the same year. Researchers at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio, Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin Abegg, announced the creation of a computer program that used previously published scrolls to reconstruct the unpublished texts.[16] Officials at the Huntington Library in San Marino, California, led by head librarian William Andrew Moffett, announced that they would allow researchers unrestricted access to the library’s complete set of photographs of the scrolls. In the fall of that year, Wacholder published 17 documents that had been reconstructed in 1988 from a concordance and had come into the hands of scholars outside of the international team; in the same month, there occurred the discovery and publication of a complete set of facsimiles of the Cave 4 materials at the Huntington Library. Thereafter, the officials of the IAA agreed to lift their long-standing restrictions on the use of the scrolls.[17]
If you keep a close eye on the footnotes of your Bible, you’ll see a number of places where the words of modern translations are different than those read by your parents or grandparents. One of the reasons for this is that we know more about ancient scribal culture and have access to hoards more biblical manuscripts today than we ever have. This means the textual foundation under the hood of most any contemporary translation is better than it has ever been. Whether you’re a fan of the NIV, NRSV, ESV, or ABC-123, each new edition involves incremental change to the actual words on the page.
But this sword cuts in both directions. While we have far more evidence to work with, if the Scrolls taught us anything about Old Testament scripture, it is generally true that the older the manuscripts the more varied they become. Simply put: human scribes were not photocopiers and no two manuscripts are the same. Scribes copied texts but also interpreted them. That was their job. It wasn’t trickery or introducing error at every turn. This often resulted in slow growth of biblical texts with manuscripts having relatively modest variations in content. A word here, a phrase there, and in some cases, more than one edition of a book circulated. To many modern readers, this might sound like a major problem. I’d rather see it as an opportunity. An opportunity for artful restoration of a text that is both ancient and sacred. Let me show you what I mean.
I really like the way RELEVANT handles this:
Have you ever been reading the Old Testament and then, wham!, some guy shows up in the story and starts gouging out people’s eyeballs? I have, very alarming. (Gotta love the Old Testament though, so old school!) Of course, I’m talking about the incident that plays out in 1 Samuel 10-11, just after Saul became Israel’s first king. In most ancient manuscripts and modern Bible translations, chapter 10 ends with a statement of a small group uttering lack of confidence in Saul’s ability to defeat the Ammonites (1 Sam 10:27). Chapter 11 then opens with the sudden introduction of an Ammonite king named Nahash, who insists on only making a treating with the Israelites so long as he can gouge out each and all’s right eyeball (1 Sam 11:1-2). Not only is this a bad deal, its super confusing in the context of the narrative. Why? Something is missing.
At least seven copies of the book of Samuel were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. One of these, known as 4QSamuala, just happens to be the oldest known manuscript of the book in existence (dated to around 50-25 BCE). In this version of the text, we find a full paragraph tucked in between the end of chapter 10 and beginning of chapter 11. The translation of this Dead Sea Scroll reads as follows:[Na]hash king of the [A]mmonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites viciously. He put out the right [ey]e of a[ll] of them and brought fe[ar and trembling] on [Is]rael. Not one of the Israelites in the region be[yond the Jordan] remained [whose] right eye Naha[sh king of] the Ammonites did n[ot pu]t out, except seven thousand men [who escaped from] the Ammonites and went to [Ja]besh-gilead.
What we have here is essentially a cut scene seemingly lost in the generations of copying all other biblical manuscripts. From this content, we learn who this Nahash figure is and why he had the sadistic penchant for collecting eyeballs. Incidentally, the ancient Jewish historian Josephus also seems to have been aware or this detail as he hints at it in his own retelling of Saul’s life (Antiquities 6.5.1). This is the single largest difference discovered when the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls were compared with all previously known witness to the Old Testament. The spectrum of other variations revealed by the scrolls ranges from the spelling of terms, to added/omitted words, or even sentences. While many common Bible translations have dabbled in the Dead Sea Scrolls and included new readings, to date the NRSV is the only one bold enough to integrate the reading described here in 1 Samuel.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are important for a number of reasons. First, they shed light on an otherwise known Jewish group. Actually, the people who wrote the Scrolls never refer to themselves as Jews. They are intriguingly vague about their identity. Second, the Scrolls indicate that certain books of the Bible were more popular than others, a conclusion we could draw similarly from the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. Third, the use of the Old Testament as an authoritative source for biblical interpretation and personal and community life matches material from the New Testament as well. Finally, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls allows us to access Old Testament manuscripts more than 1,000 years older than we previously possessed. Before the discovery of the Scrolls, the oldest complete manuscript of any Old Testament book dated to the 10th century A.D. To be clear, if Moses wrote the Pentateuch in circa 1400 B.C., then our earliest copy of his complete work in Hebrew dated 2,400 years after it was written! It is with justification that the Dead Sea Scrolls are considered by many the most important biblical archaeological discovery of all time.[19]
WORKS CITED:
“The Digital Dead Sea Scrolls: Nature and Significance”. Israel Museum Jerusalem. Retrieved 4 November 2023.
Lash, Mordechay; Goldstein, Yossi; Shai, Itzhaq (2020). “Underground-Archaeological Research in the West Bank, 1947–1968: Management, Complexity, and Israeli Involvement”. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology.
Duhaime, Bernard; Labadie, Camille (2020). “Intersections and Cultural Exchange: Archaeology, Culture, International Law and the Legal Travels of the Dead Sea Scrolls”. Canada’s Public Diplomacy. Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy. Cham: Springer International Publishing. p. 146
“Hebrew University Archaeologists Find 12th Dead Sea Scrolls Cave”. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017.
Donahue, Michelle Z. (10 February 2017). “New Dead Sea Scroll Find May Help Detect Forgeries”. nationalgeographic.com. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018.
Ofri, Ilani (13 March 2009). “Scholar: The Essenes, Dead Sea Scroll ‘authors,’ never existed”. Ha’aretz. Archived from the original on 6 January 2018.
Golb, Norman (5 June 2009). “On the Jerusalem Origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls” (PDF). University of Chicago Oriental Institute. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 June 2010.
Vermes, Geza (1977). The Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran in Perspective. London: Collins. p. 15.
McCarthy, Rory (27 August 2008). “From papyrus to cyberspace”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 22 December 2016.
“Copies of Dead Sea Scrolls To Go Public – Release Would End Scholars’ Dispute'”. The Seattle Times. 22 September 1991. Archived from the original on 21 October 2013
HUC-JIR Mourns Dr. Ben Zion Wacholder, Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion, 31 March 2011, archived from the original on 18 November 2015
“Dead Sea Scrolls”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 12 April 2009.
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.
Wait what? All that in the one word? -I don’t think so!
Just about every day I scroll through a “BIBLE” meme on Facebook that makes me cringe. I used to comment but I no longer do largely because I think sometimes people don’t interpret the comments as useful, or teaching better theology but as some kind of self-promotion, or “I think I am better than you” type of thing. I think that is unfortunate. I believe part of shepherding and discipleship is a Mars Hill or rabbinical teaching method of being open to constantly learning and working through a better understanding of the test with the giftings of those around you. To keep each other Biblically sharp and accountable to be faithful to the text. Letting people get really loose with the text has led to alot of bad theology and ditch diving. I believe the Bible greatly encouraged textual exploration together within the body. That is what the body of Christ is supposed to do. I have 40 years of deeply studying the Bible under my belt and God has gifted me with a certain learned spiritual intuition of exegesis. I hope it comes as a gift to those that have a learning posture towards the scripture. To those more interested in fighting or finger pointing, or making internet dumpster fires, I am not interested.
THE MEME:
At first glance this probably looks pretty neat. It’s challenging, it looks at the original language rather than an English glossed translation, it comes off as going deeper. So, what’s the problem? Well, it isn’t faithful.
A faithful translation means you let the text speak for the text. You don’t read your own desire into the text. This commonly referred to as good exegesis.
In this case, here are some issues:
One word? Sort of. The text is Genesis 3:9. Start by typing that into a browser followed by the word interlinear. The first link will be the Bible Hub, click it. The word is ’ay·yek·kāh and you will see the [are] is in parentheses. It technically isn’t in the text but linguistically it is- but it is understood such as an understood “YOU” in English. Click the word and you are going to find there is only one occurrence of this “word” or conjunction of words in the Bible. This is called a Hapax Legomenon. The basic hermeneutical law or idea of any Hapax Legomenon is because it is rare don’t read too much into it. See if you can find how it is used outside of the Bible to give you a better understanding of how the text uses it. But in this case, it isn’t a “TRUE” Hapax Legomenon in the sense that if you click the root word above which is Strong’s 335 you will see the root is “ay” in Hebrew which occurs 36 times in the Old Testament. We have a pretty good idea of what it means! There are some words or phrases in the Bible where we don’t even have the root anywhere else and that is a better example of a Hapax Legomenon, but they are both technically considered Hapax Legomenon’s. This one we can see essentially means “where or how” which makes sense in the English translation “where are you?” I would encourage you to read the usage and cultural notes below the word. These are theologically very basic and at times arguable, but still give you a better start. In this case it notes that the word can come with distress or lament. Seems true to this text! It also notes that this particular word is often noted of spiritual locations within the cosmos. Again, true to the text. Most of the time these notes don’t get too controversial and are written by well noted scholars. This is sort of important because there are other similar words in Hebrew that could have been used without a sometimes-spiritual emphasis. We see this importance in Deuteronomy 32 when the text asks “Where are there gods.” It is also used in 1 Samuel 9:18 in regard to the SEER. It is used in 2 Samuel 15:2 in regard to the city which is interesting and could be signified as one of the reasons I believe in ancient times cities were gatherings of fallen spiritual beings and people aligned to their ways and rival to Yahweh. In Job 2 it is used to ask where “the satan” came from. The problem is (as you can see to the column on the right of all the verses using this Hebrew root) there are at least a few texts that don’t seem to take on “spiritual spatial” significance, it just means where? So that tells us we can’t read too much into a sense of cosmic space every time we see the word used. Hermeneutically it may or may not have spiritual bearing. Therefore, we have to determine from the rest of the text whether it does or not. In other words, we don’t have the “RIGHT” to attribute a spiritual significance to the simple text “where” unless something in the rest of the text gives it to us for certain. If the text doesn’t grant it, then we have to determine if we the ability to say it could go that way, but we don’t know for sure. It may or may not have spiritual spatial implications. In this text we already know they are in Eden, so the context gives us the sacred space.
To say that it is one word is accurate (I would have said the same thing), but it’s a bit complicated as in Hebrew bits of different words form one word. This is actually really helpful in determining what one word can mean because we can break the word up and study the microcosm of it. In this case you would think all the things the author of that post says the word means would be great if the word could have been textually broken up that way. The problem in this case is it doesn’t say all those things. We get “where” which (as we already noted) may or likely implies a spiritual search-find. You could take away from the text exegetically that God is “searching us out” or “looking for us” or perhaps even noting that the space is spiritual as I already alluded to. All of those things could be good exegesis. That is what the text gives us. Next, we have the understood {ARE}. We don’t really get anything magical from that. Then we have “you” essentially as formed into the singular word. There is really not much to exegete there either. He is talking to a certain person. DO we have the right to insert our name here? Well, the genre of this text is a historical narrative. Simply telling the story. So no, we don’t really have the right to insert our name. Because God was seeking out Adam in the garden doesn’t give us the textual ability to say He searches us out the same. He may or may not, but the text doesn’t give us that warrant. So here you see the author of the meme breaking some huge theological and hermeneutical laws. He takes a text that isn’t about him and tries to make it about him or us. This is called reading into the text. Using the Bible to twist it into saying what you want it to say without the merit of the text giving you that. Now could it mean that later God will act the same towards you? Yeah, later the text may do that but here it doesn’t. However, if you read the text doing that for others in the story over and over and over you might come to an ontological conclusion that if there are 26 examples of God acting this way in the narrative, we have then maybe he acts this way towards me too! (But to be clear, the text still wouldn’t give us that for certain.) Sometimes people take a lot of latitude to say the scripture means something that the text never gave or intended to give. That seems to be the case here. It simply isn’t good theology or maybe even theology at all. It is saying the Bible says something in a text that doesn’t say that.
“God’s first words after the fall” – We don’t know this either. The Bible doesn’t give us the full account. There may have been other words. Perhaps these are the first words in the Bible after the fall. But making the statement that the author makes in the way that he does isn’t true. Does this seem nitpicky? Maybe but there is a difference, and it matters in biblical interpretation and textual criticism.
This is classic for someone trying to make a doctrine or in the authors words, “a whole theology” over something the text doesn’t say. The text says nothing of the lost. Was Adam lost? We aren’t told that he was. Was he asking for a confession. Later scripture tells us that when we sin, we need to confess, but that isn’t in the text here. What about restoration and redemption? Well, everyone knows God wants restoration and redemption, right? But this text doesn’t go here either. Are you following me? There are texts that talk about redemption and restoration but not this one. In fact, maybe the opposite. This text leads to exile from the garden, that is the opposite of restoration. So what it does tell us is exile may come before restorative acts. That could be a more faithful takeaway than what the author of the meme comes up with. The author improperly says the text means something that isn’t given to us. It is as if the author is trying to write his own Bible and proof text the word to say what he wants it to say. The real problem is that we are saying the word says something that it isn’t. Maybe other places say that, but a better hermeneutic is to only exegete what the text says. Don’t add or fill in anything. There is no context for the takeaways the author asserts over the text.
CONCLUSION
A Faithful reading of the text means we only take away what the text gives us. We can’t read anything else into it. I can’t tell you how many times in a sermon I hear a pastor say “the Bible says this” and goes on to quote a verse that doesn’t say anything close to what the pastor says it said. In many cases we have become all too comfortable with accepting things like this, and it has led to a lot of bad consequences. It seems there are so many people are using the Bible for their own gain saying what they want it to ay and that is unfaithful to the text.
NOTE; The Bible Hub is free, easily accessible and works well. LOGOS is better but is $$$.
Expedition 44 founders, Dr. Matt and Dr. Ryan have a book coming out in 2025 entitled Principalities, Powers, and Allegiances which deals in large part with the interpretation of Romans 13. Its rather scholarly so let me give an overview in fairly plain words. If you want to work through 1300 references and do your due diligence on the subject, well then, you will need to wait for the 300-page book!
As we approach texts such as Romans 13, theologians categorize them in two ways- submission and conflict. The submission texts of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 use the language of submission or subjection to authorities and have been used to frame a potentially positive view of the government and kingdom structures in the world. Though we show in our book that not all interpret these texts in that manner. Runge summarizes this submission approach to these texts saying,
Paul’s rationale for obedience has nothing to do with the rulers’ godliness, competence, or any other qualification. Instead, his call for submission to their authority is grounded in God’s authority. The only authorities that exist are the ones whom God has placed there, according to His sovereign plan… Although Paul is silent regarding unjust rulers, Peter is not. Peter describes an example of subjecting oneself to a master even if he is unjust (1 Pet 2:18–19). He takes the position that even in the face of unjust authority, it is still better to submit.[1]
The conflict text we examine in our forthcoming book is Revelation 13 and is often based on anti-imperial sentiments. The thrust to the interpretation of this text is based on which theological school one lands in when approaching the letter of Revelation. If one places this as purely future events then it has little bearing on how one views government in the present, especially if the church will be “raptured” at the time of the “Beast’s Government”: a “revived Roman empire,” according to some futurist interpretations.[2] (Namely dispensationalism views such as the popular pre-tribulation view.) Other approaches to this passage see this as something from the past yet can be applied to all believers of all times within the view that the Bible was written for us but not to us. In that perspective, it was written to seven churches in Asia Minor in the first century as the primary audience and it must have meant something for them in the first century context of the Roman empire and the emperor cult. Putting it purely in the future removes those churches from the context because they are purely an allegory of church history eras.[3]
For this article, we will only be looking at Romans 13, but I would be remise if I didn’t point out it’s context and relationship to other similar texts within the lens of scripture.
CONTEXT OF ROMANS 13
Whenever you dive into exegesis context is king (well actually Jesus is king, but you know what I mean!) As I indicate above, we need to first determine who was the intended audience and how would they have taken the text, epistle, message, or letter. Once you figure that out than “maybe” you can apply it to your own situation. (This hermeneutic is often referred to as textures of interpretation.) Romans was likely written while Paul was staying in the house of Gaius in Corinth. The epistle was probably transcribed by Paul’s amanuensis Tertius and is dated AD late 55 to early 57. We are told in certain textual variants including subscripts explicitly mentioning Romans 16 that it was delivered by Phoebe who was a Deacon. This letter likely would have been distributed in a similar fashion to the rest of the NT letters in a teaching / preaching style by the one making the delivery to a circuit of communities. Phoebe lived in Cenchreae, a port town near the city of Corinth. Corinth was where Paul was staying when he wrote the letter to the Romans.
It is important to remember that Romans was written before Paul went to prison and many scholars believe it to have been that catalyst that sent him that way with language very much asserting authority to King Jesus which was deemed as rival to the emperor of Rome. Romans is written at the End of Claudius’ edict after he evicted Jews or Jewish leaders in 49 AD. In 54 AD Claudius dies and Nero takes the throne asserting his uncle Claudius to be an “idiotes” and welcomed back everyone to Rome. This would seem to be a very political move to boost popularity towards his goal of building the empire, rather than a direct support towards Christians. We would assert this by seeing that within a few short years he begins to persecute Christians throwing lavish garden parties that are lit by the ambience of Christians dipped in tar and set on fire. Josephus would go on to note “in the name of Christus” as coding that led to disturbances between Nero and Christianity. Although some of the Epistle of Romans seems to almost carry a secret code as to not bring imminent wrath from Nero, it still clearly states that Jesus is king (and not Nero) flying directly in the face of the empire. I don’t think anyone would argue that it was enough to have gotten Paul on the Roman radar to be in trouble as he had been sent to prison because he was accused by the governor of Syria of acts of violence in 52 AD. We get no record of Paul doing anything violent, but opposing Rome by your speech was often treated as treason and dealt with in the same sense as violent rebellions. Make no mistake, he was viewed as an insurgent by Roman authorities on multiple occasions.
There is also a power shift in the church transitioning from Jew and Gentile creating the context of the struggle of the book of Romans. The theme of the strong and weak is perhaps viewed as Paul’s main mission in Rome to live out the gospel of unity. Paul has a greater vision and is preparing for His mission to Spain asking them to live in unity as he starts to take the gospel to the end of the earths. His message takes on the persona of, “If we can’t get it right here how are we going to go to reach the people at the ends of the earth?“
ROMANS 1:1-4 starts right out by saying JESUS IS KING (JESUS IS LORD CAESAR IS NOT) stating that Paul is a Bondservant of Christ (the king, the anointed one). This is first century “doulos” language setting apart Paul as a willing “slave” for the gospel. It is important to note that these would certainly have been interpreted as “anti” words in regard to a Roman national political kingdom. The text uses the term “son of God” which is a title for caesar as well as “curios” as the title for Lord demanded as a “self-title” by the emperor.
When you approach this book from a Deuteronomy 32 worldview, Romans 1:21-23 frames humans as image bearers that rejected God and results in God handing them over to their own desires or consequences (which is the biblical definition of God’s wrath.) In a similar understanding, Yahweh appoints Elohim over each nation to be cultivated by a spiritual being and that spiritual being essentially “falls” as they allow themselves to be worshipped in the place of Yahweh. They “take the praise” and become another god before Yahweh and become the “household” image if idolatry. Humanity rejects God and God hands the people and the fallen spiritual being over to the “world” and those principalities. The Romans text uses the Greek word paradidomi which specifically draws on the fact that they were handed over to “sin and death” which are seen as demonic “powers” that the world serves. Romans then makes the assertion that because we serve KING JESUS, we are no longer to be slaves to these demonic forces. The author of Romans then projects Nero as aligned with the demonic forces and those that stand with Jesus as RIVAL to those powers in their own kingdom of Jesus. This is partly where we get the idea of re-vival – we are working against the “rival” world (those not in allegiant faith to Jesus) to take back what was lost and reclaim them solely for JESUS and His kingdom.
It is also important to understand the basic outline of Romans:
ROMANS 1-4 is one literary unit – Christ is King, and Jesus makes a way for everyone to Him
ROMANS 5-8 We are slaves to sin and can be set free and delivered into becoming part of Christ’s kingdom (EXODUS MOTIF)
Romans 6 Baptism – the RED SEA is seen as a victory over the spiritual beings that seek to enslave us to the powers, principalities, and kingdoms of this earth
Romans 7 is the Law (Jew / Gentiles see differently but need unity, they are part of the same Jesus kingdom and need to be in spiritual alignment)
Romans 8 Restoring the promise land and framing a return to Edenic thinking
Romans 9-11 goes into Jewish ancestry matters which may not mean much to us today, but was crucial to the grafting of the new covenant kingdom church (ALL ISRAEL)
Romans 12-16 one literary unity tied into together. As basic as it sounds, hermeneutically we shouldn’t read Romans 13 without 12 first; and certainly, shouldn’t be forming doctrines based on one line pull phrases. According to Hermeneutic laws, we need to read Romans 12 with 13. Romans 12 serves as a pre-context to everything established in chapter 13.
The basis of ROMANS 12 is to be a Living sacrifice; don’t be conformed to the world but be transformed to the way of Christ and unified in His kingdom. At the end of the chapter Paul basically summarizes the sermon on the mount. This is the Jesus Manifesto and charge to live for CHRIST ALONE. This is “love in action” verbiage aimed straight at the church. It answers the question of “How does the church deal with those outsides of the church or in the rival empire?” It is exilic language reminiscent of Jeremiah 29.
THERE IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION AS TO THE PRIMARY TARGET OF ROM 12-13
There is obviously some empirical language as I described with the opening words of Romans directly and emphatically targeting CAESAR himself, but much of this is also likely aimed at local government. The target doesn’t really matter much IMO, other than the impact of those desiring theologically to apply the text to local and/or national government. There is an argument for 2 voices, but I lean towards local authority. I might even say that in the end where I land is that the text is a call for discipleship under the way of Jesus. There may or may not be two voices but if you arrive where I have, it doesn’t really matter. Romans isn’t seeking to give us a full theology of the state or federal government. Some want to revolt, and others are deciding if they should pay the local dues or not, Paul is more concerned about the overall picture or the way of Jesus.
Rome had smaller government entities entrusted to local magistrates and each city would try to “outdo” the next in their adulterated loyalty displays to the emperor. As we read between the lines, (which again was likely necessary in the dispersing of this letter), we get the idea that Christians weren’t to participate in these sorts of things. They likely were encouraged by those in the church (right or wrong) to stop paying “taxes” or “dues” that supported the local corrupt tax collectors and the near worship of the emperor. This was largely because these dues for civic upkeep often went directly to the neighborhood shrine that honored (worshipped) the emperor and/or local gods. When Christians refused to participate it was seen as unpatriotic to ROME and the emperor. However, it was clear that most Christians weren’t “not paying dues” as a direct act of anarchy or rebellion, but rather the simple fact that their allegiance was simply to a different King. Christians often believed they were called to live in the shadow of the empire but not by the ways of the empire.
N. T. Wright [4] notes that Romans is:
…neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece. It dwarfs most of his other writings, an Alpine peak towering over hills and villages. Not all onlookers have viewed it in the same light or from the same angle, and their snapshots and paintings of it are sometimes remarkably unalike. Not all climbers have taken the same route up its sheer sides, and there is frequent disagreement on the best approach. What nobody doubts is that we are here dealing with a work of massive substance, presenting a formidable intellectual challenge while offering a breathtaking theological and spiritual vision.
Textually, Romans 13:1–7 is a fragment dealing with obedience to earthly powers is considered by some, for example James Kallas,[5] to be an interpolation.[6] Even Paul Tillich (who is known for His excellent book on systematic theology that I don’t agree with), along with the great majority of evangelical scholars, accepts the historical authenticity of Romans 13:1–7, but claims it has been misinterpreted by churches with an anti-revolutionary bias:
One of the many politico-theological abuses of biblical statements is the understanding of Paul’s words [Romans 13:1–7] as justifying the anti-revolutionary bias of some churches, particularly the Lutheran. But neither these words nor any other New Testament statement deals with the methods of gaining political power. In Romans, Paul is addressing eschatological enthusiasts, not a revolutionary political movement.[7]
CHIASTIC PATTERN
It may not come as a surprise to most, but the book of Romans contains several chiastic patterns in order to aid its readers in the learning of the most important message of all time: The good news of Jesus Christ. Chiasmus is an inverted parallelism; it presents a series of words or ideas followed by a second presentation of similar words or ideas, but in reverse order. The Old Testament has hundreds of chiasms (the book of Isaiah alone has more than one hundred), varying in length from four lines to entire chapters. The most obvious sense of this might simply be referring to the outline above to which the beginning chapters and end chapters are both to be seen as bookends of the literary unit. On the surface this chiasm may not seem very profound, but it actually teaches an important truth about family togetherness—and about families centering themselves in the temple. However, it isn’t always clear why the author wrote in chiasmus and how our interpretation should or might be influenced by the literary device. Perhaps the repetition of words in balanced, symmetrical structures encourages and enhances learning and memorization. Also, repetition of key points or themes emphasizes the crux of a prophetic message. Finally, chiasmus encourages reading of important texts by making them aesthetically pleasing to the reader. Could a word have been chosen over another because of rhythmic value? Perhaps. Could an emphasis be understood as a contranym or need for repetition? Perhaps. All of these things should go into your textual criticism as a texture of interpretation for faithful understanding and application. Here is the chiastic structure of our text as the larger sections and smaller sections follow this style. I will leave interpretive deductions to you. It would certainly help to read this in Greek if you are able.
ROMANS 13:1-2
It is interesting that Romans 13 comes right out referring to governing authorities as those who have power over you. The transliteration gloss of our English word “authority” is the Greek “exousia” which I want to point out is Paul’s word for the fallen spiritual beings, the principalities and powers, or what we more modernly refer to as demons. Of course, the phrase takes on other dimensions in other parts of scripture, but here I would argue for a Hebraic use of the terminology. Essentially, he is calling the kingdoms of the world, their governments and magistrates that rule over everyone demonic. (Dionysius Halicarnassus 8, 44; 11, 32 also suggests this). I Corinthians 2 uses this same language under the same pretenses. The Authority is God’s. “let us be subject” is the Greek hupotassó from which tasso takes on a passive tense and comes from a military “filing” or order. In other words, our God is in order over the rulers but isn’t putting a stamp of approval on their actions. It is similar to a librarian ordering books (you might even say having power over their ability to influence) but not by being the author of all of them. In the same way, God hands over nations to be managed by the spiritual beings or sons of God which eventually continues through their falling away but God isn’t morally approving anything that they have done, God lines them up or simply uses them by divine purpose in many ways regardless of their proclivity towards Him. Perhaps we need to identify this as a tool that God allows and possibly uses but not “ordains”; or perhaps we just need to “leave it alone” with the understanding that His ways are higher than ours and are quite dynamic. God used Babylon to punish pagan nations, but obviously the way that Babylon does this isn’t natively of GOD. God isn’t aligned in it (and we shouldn’t be either.) God allows them, but doesn’t set them into place. That isn’t his character. We are reminded of this by Hosea 8:4 -“They [Israel] have set up kings but not by me.” What Romans is asserting is that all authority is from God and this bold statement was certainly viewed as undermining Caesar’s power. Paul was boldly proclaiming that Caesar HAS NO REAL AUTHORITY. God is the one with power not Caesar. We are reminded of this order as it very much takes on Genesis 1:1 language and therefore suggest a theological consistent view over the lens of scripture.
BE SUBJECT AND RESIST is a word play in Greek. Both words, hypotassesthō and antitassomenosare Hapax legomenon’s (which I state for your consideration). They are in the perfect active participle which means they are past and coming into future. We are certainly charged with an overtone to not be a poor witness or ambassadors of Jesus (and to protect the witness of the kingdom community).
Submit here is again hupotasso. To be clear it doesn’t mean to “obey.” It means to voluntarily yield or put in a line (words of order). Ephesians 5 says submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. 1 Peter suggests that submission was for GOD’s sake. Paul could have used the Greek work hupakouó which was the more common word to “OBEY”, but he doesn’t, instead he uses a word for submit. Paul reserves the word “OBEY” for GOD ALONE.
We may need to take into consideration the context of Romans 12 from the beginning. There are Christians mixed with Jews and Zealots trying to fight to take back Jerusalem by robbing temples and all kinds of crazy stuff. Paul in Romans 2 seems to be speaking against this. Don’t cause trouble, be self-sacrificial as Jesus was on the cross. You overcome by winning them over through LOVE. Perhaps the Christians (Jews and gentiles) in Rome were looking back on their brethren starting to get a bit “crazy” or “un-Ruly” in Jerusalem wondering if they should follow suit and Paul seems to starkly say “no.”
I need to also point out the contranym language that could be influenced by the chiastic structure but maybe not. Lots of people in the Bible are disobeying the government in the name of God. Mary and Joseph flee disobeying Herod, in Acts 9 and in II Corinthians 11 Paul seems to be boasting about disobeying the government on multiple occasions (although this can be argued.) But to be clear, we don’t get the fight back language from Paul. If you think scripture suggests or is telling you to fight back or take a stand politically elsewhere in the Bible you are welcome to try to deduct that, but hermeneutically this passage (and all of Romans) textually doesn’t give you that. That wasn’t Paul’s view, even in the midst of revolt and anarchy at the time this was written. It would have been very easy for him to suggest such a thing or action of that nature if that was his intention, but it simply isn’t there. Not many years later, the Christian zealots go to war against Rome which even included the ESSENES, some of whom seemed to be very pacifistic (and likely listened to Paul’s words here) while others were literally preparing for war wanting God to send down hellfire and brimstone and legions of angels against the Romans which obviously God didn’t do. He didn’t do it at the cross, why would people think he would do it now? Seems like 2000 years later people are still thinking that way despite the words of both Jesus and Paul. (And I own a gun range, so I sort of wish that’s the way Jesus operated, but He doesn’t. That sword in the book of Revelation isn’t what you want it to be!)
In Peter, (which our book really gets into) he says they’re appointed to praise good deeds and punish evil deeds. In other words, political rulers might or might not uphold righteousness or justice, but it isn’t within God’s direct hand. When people wrong other people, the government should punish them, but God’s retributive justice isn’t on the line.
ROMANS 13:3-5
Allegiance to Christ might look like opposition to the world. Acts 5 says we must obey Christ; in other words, we are living this denial of the world out because of our submission to Christ, not simply because we want to be rebellious towards the world. This looks like a community next to or within Babylon but as a light showing a better more beautiful way. We are active in our love for our enemies and praising those who persecute them, this is the main thrust of what it means to be a prophetic witness.
Perhaps the term “BEARING THE SWORD” in our age derails people. For instance, Wayne Grudem who is a statist says, “sword in the hands of a good government is God’s designated weapon to defeat evil doers.” On the other hand, Preston Sprinkle says, “Using Romans 13:3 isn’t to be used as God’s way of ruling the world is out of context for a warfare policy or policing nations of the world. This isn’t a chapter on How God rules the world.” I would tend to personally to say that exegetically Sprinkle is significantly more faithful to the text here. I see God allowing the sword to be used by a government but not charging or designating it.
The sword was not about capital punishment in Romans or Revelation and to make such conclusions would be require a good amount of theological gymnastics. We simply don’t have grounds to go that way within the text. I am aware that some have tried to make this point by saying things such as pointing out that criminals were typically executed by beheading with a sword (crucifixion was reserved for the worst criminals of the lowest classes); but it is a stretch to things that the exegesis of the text suggests this (whether you think the Bible suggests this theology in other places or not.) Brian Zahnd has an excellent POST on this and is a quick read.
There is also a consideration that the sword (Greek machaira) could be coded for first century language referring to the local magistrate or tax police. The Greek word means judicial authority. We have to remember this is an HONOR/SHAME society (not guilty innocent society as we are in the West). It is also worth exploring the term used for governing authorities sometimes translated as “minister of God for your good.” The Greek is diakonos and is used by Paul referring to those using their gifts in the church. But the word itself doesn’t seem to take on good or evil, consider more like a chaos monster. It is a device that can go either way. (It isn’t the fork that makes people fat.) If we parse the word into the Hebrew equivalent, we find that OT pagan nations are referred to by the same Hebrew word. In Isaiah 44 it is used to describe the king of Persia. In Jeremiah 27 and 43 it is said of Nebuchadnezzar and in Isaiah 10 it describes the nation of Assyria. These are PAGAN DICTATORS. God uses them as instruments of his hand, but God doesn’t approve of their measures and certainly hasn’t “commissioned,” “anointed,” or “ordained” them. I will also remind you that ministers aren’t always good guys. Sometimes they are evil. So, at the very least we have no grounds to use this verse to defend entanglement of the state.God’s way was theocracy which resulted in a KING JESUS covenant and kingdom. Man’s ways were to establish kings and rulers in the place of what God says is His.
“When Paul adds the thought that these people are appointed by God to their position of authority, he simply cannot have in mind the empire or the hierarchy of government. Interpreting his words in that way would require us to set aside everything we know about the Tanakh’s treatment of evil or idolatrous rulers. How can we imagine that Paul ignores the stories of Daniel and the Israelites in captivity, or the verdicts God ascribes to many of the kings of Israel? Is Paul asserting that God’s judgment on these men in power is misplaced? Are we ready to endorse them as God’s choices for leadership when God Himself describes them as wicked?” – Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans (Fortress Press, 1996).
The Greek word used for sword is machairan and is the equivalent of the Hebrew word used to describe the knife used in circumcision (Joshua 5:2), the sacrificial knife used in the offering of Isaac (Genesis 22:6) and a small dagger (Judges 3:16). It is not the Greek word used to describe the typical military sword of the Roman soldiers. Furthermore, this term is used symbolically for a sign of judicial authority in Roman law which would make the understanding of local authorities or magistrates more fitting. As I suggested earlier, Paul may be using the word as a metaphor for disciplinary action of the synagogue authorities.
ROMANS 13:5
Subjection is usually glossed as yielding or submitting because of conscious sake. Peter uses this as a synonym of allegiance to God’s kingdoms as loyalty language, it is a life aligned towards God. Peter says we are allegiant to a different king so live at peace! The word conscience in 13:5 is the same word used for allegiance in 1 Peter 3.
ROMANS 13:6-7
We see the word for servants/ministers again and I will remind you to interpret as tools of God, not positive or negative. Taxes here seems to be a general toll tax for goods. It is likely linked to the local magistrate or community and perhaps in alignment with the enshrined idolatry towards the gods or emperor. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God. There is an argument that all of money is the world’s here, but that’s a different article. Sticking to the immediate text we can deduct that we are to give yourself wholly to God, this is a hyper link (remez) to what Jesus said regularly. We fear God alone. Honor all people in the image of God.
The government is simply a tool that God may use; as in the OT when He used pagan nations as a tool. (Think of it as a stop gap until we are completely reconciled to new life in Him.) Furthermore, God does not set up or pick leaders of the world. Hosea and 1 Samuel 8 explicitly say this. He actually sees it as a rejection of Himself. “Render” is a hyperlink to render unto Caesar which is about giving Cesar his stupid coin, but you belong to God. His image is on you. Romans13:8 pretty much defeats a nationalist reading of Rom 13. If a Christian wants to do and enforce most of the things in those seven verses.
Christians subvert in love not rebellion.
Theologian Greg Boyd notes:
It was never God’s goal to have humans rule other people. Governments are God’s concession to human sin. They are now a practical necessity in the world, and God uses them to further his purposes (Rom. 13:1-6). But this doesn’t mean that God approves of them … The Kingdom of God, on the other hand, is based on people trusting God as their sole ruler. Kingdom people are therefore to place no more trust or confidence in governments than Jesus did – which is none. If a government’s laws happen to be consistent with the rule of God, we obey them. If they’re not, we follow the example of Jesus and disobey them (cf. Ac. 5:39). But either way, it’s clear that our behavior isn’t dictated by what government says, but by what God says.
DISCIPLESHIP & SHEPHERDING
The application of this project and or any other endeavor for the church should be seen primarily in the distinctness of the kingdom of God. This is a foundational aspect of discipleship. What should be gleaned from our exploration of the biblical narrative is that God’s people are to be disentangled from the world and live in the way of Jesus- as a prophetic witness to the world in the way of the faithful witness.
When the Deuteronomy 32 Worldview is applied to political discipleship and allegiances it should deemphasize political involvement and national allegiances with the world and promote deeper wholehearted devotion to the true king- Jesus. This does not deter from our commitment to love our neighbors outside the church. The kingdom is seen as a light to the nations, living in the way of the king and by the law of the king. It is called to be distinct but not removed – being “Exiles in Babylon” working by the Spirit to re inherit the disinherited people of the nations. This narrative approach sees the Edenic bookends of the Bible as the ideal. In the beginning we saw humanity as kings and priests in Eden and we see the same picture at the end of the Bible when heaven comes to earth after Babylon and the Powers are destroyed.
Although there are numerous passages on discipleship and shepherding, Matthew 28 and the great commission seems to always be the one used to promote such a thing, and rightly so. Perhaps one of my pet peeves is when people misquote the text to say that we are called to “disciple the nations.” Perhaps it is a matter of mincing words, but the text of the great commission is about discipling people not kingdoms (ethnos not bassilas.) People of all tongues and tribes specifically. This isn’t talking about their systems, empires, or borders; it means people. To interpret ethnos as nation states is a hermeneutical gross misinterpretation and unfaithful to the text.
CONCLUSION
Since the beginning of time the Bible tells us we are caught in a spiritual war within the cosmos and we are the central figures of the battle, the segullah (God’s set apart). Perhaps spiritual warfare looks different today than during the freeing of the Israelites in Egypt, but perhaps not.
God’s intimate and vivacious pursuit to walk or have intimate relationship with us is tied closely to His character and thus never changes. God’s pursuit to have intimate communion with us is stronger and closer than ever before.
We are designed in the image of God and thus we are designed to bring forth life in everything that we do, yet if we are not allowing God to do the work beginning on the inside of our minds and hearts, lasting fruit cannot be produced.
The sin of Adam and Eve separated humanity from the tree of life but God is still offering the relationship that He had with them in Eden and actually desires a better way, not to just occasionally walk with you as He did with Adam and Eve in Eden, but through Jesus now offers even more, He wants to never leave you, to continually reside in your heart as you become His temple being the very physical manifestation of the presence of God to those you interact with. Yes, the world has been taken over by evil, but you represent light and have the power to make the presence that you fill sacred to make what is broken healed. You are the source of God to renew the Earth. You no longer live under a curse, but the power of the LORD is in you. Choose this day to no longer live in sin and dwell richly in the presence of the LORD. (1 Jn 3:6-9, 1 Jn 5:18, Rom 8:11, Gal 2:20, Col 1:27, I Peter 2:8-9, Eph 3:17, 2 Thess 1:10, 2 Cor 5:17.)
_________________________________________
Written in first person by Dr. Will Ryan with the research and auspice of Dr. Matt Mouzakis
1. Steven E. Runge, High Definition Commentary: Romans (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 227; 230
2. Gregg, Steve, Revelation: Four Views Commentary, (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 2013), 335
3. See Harold Hunter, Revelation, (Evansville, IN, Trinity Press, 2002), 13 as an example.
4. Leander E. Keck and others, eds., The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002) 395
5. Romans 13:1–7 an Interpolation? — The Sword and the Ploughshare”. April 24, 2014. Archived from the original on April 24, 2014.
6. “Review of the book Paul and Empire – Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Edited by Richard A. Horsley)”. Archived from the original on April 20, 2013. Retrieved November 1, 2012.
7. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, volume 3 (University of Chicago Press: 1963), p. 389.
EXPEDITION 44 