Genesis 18 presents a unique and theologically charged encounter in the Hebrew Bible: Abraham is approached by three visitors whom the narrator initially introduces with the divine name YHWH (the LORD) and later identifies as “men” (Heb. ’anashim). The narrative blurs the categories of divine presence and angelic messengers, generating interpretive complexity that has occupied Jewish and Christian interpreters alike. The episode has been variously read as a test of Abraham’s hospitality, a Christophany (pre-incarnate Christ), or as an example of divine council imagery, where heavenly beings function as God’s agents in the cosmos.
The divine council concept — an assembly of heavenly beings under the sovereignty of the one God — is widely discussed in biblical scholarship (e.g., Psalm 82; Job 1–2; 1 Kings 22:19) and has been popularized in recent years by scholars such as Michael S. Heiser. It provides a framework for reading passages that feature interactions between humans and multiple divine or semi-divine figures without undermining monotheism.
In this article, I argue that three main features of Genesis 18 support interpreting the visitors as divine council / spiritual beings whose presence reflects a partial or mediated theophany — a visible manifestation of the divine.
1. Narrative Identification: YHWH’s Presence and Angelic Agency
A compelling reason to view the visitors as more than ordinary humans lies in the narrator’s framing. The episode opens with the statement: “The LORD appeared to Abraham…” (Heb. vay-yēra’ YHWH), immediately associating the visit with a divine theophany. Yet Abraham sees three men (Genesis 18:1–2), and later two of these continue on to Sodom where they are explicitly called angels (mal’akim) in Genesis 19:1.
This interplay — singular divine presence and plural visitors — invites careful interpretation. One scholarly option is that one visitor functions as the theophanic presence of YHWH, while the other two represent heavenly agents operating within God’s divine court. The text makes this distinction narratively: the LORD speaks covenantal promises (e.g., the birth of Isaac) through one figure, while the others carry out a related mission (going on to Sodom to investigate its wickedness).
In broader divine council imagery, heavenly messengers are often depicted as “standing in the presence of YHWH” or “coming from the assembly of the holy ones” — reflecting a hierarchical divine order in which God presides but heavenly beings act as His representatives. The Job 1–2 and 1 Kings 22 scenes illustrate this pattern in other texts.
Thus, the narrative structure — singular divine announcement and plural agents — coheres with a council model wherein God interacts with humanity through a cohort of spiritual beings rather than appearing directly in full divine essence. This feeds into a mediated theophany: God is present and speaks through a heavenly agent while supported by others.
2. Theophany and “Visible Gods” in Ancient Israelite Context
A second argument arises from ancient Near Eastern and Israelite perceptions of heavenly beings. In the wider Ancient Near East, divine assemblies — councils of gods — were a common motif in narrative and ritual texts. Israelite religion, while monotheistic in its affirmation of YHWH as the supreme God, nevertheless shows evidence of a heavenly host or divine council assembly through passages that portray heavenly beings in council or in service to God. Psalm 82’s “God stands in the divine assembly” imagery suggests that Israelite tradition could conceive of spiritual beings subordinate to Yahweh but active in the divine realm.
Scholars like Michael Heiser and others have argued that such divine council imagery underlies many biblical narratives — not as evidence of polytheism, but as part of a biblical supernatural worldview in which God’s rule over cosmic order is mediated by spiritual beings. These beings can interact with the human sphere while remaining subordinate to Yahweh’s authority.
In this light, the three “men” of Genesis 18 resemble members of the divine council or heavenly host coming to execute God’s will: announcing covenantal blessing and assessing impending judgment. Their behavior — eating food, communicating with Abraham, and then departing — mirrors other divine council appearances where demons or angels take on human form in narrative. This fits more naturally with cosmic hierarchical imagery than with a purely anthropomorphic deity walking about in ordinary human guise.
3. Theophany Features: Speech, Authority, and Human Response
Finally, the theophanic qualities of the encounter support reading the visitors as divine or heavenly figures rather than mere mortals. Key elements include:
Divine Speech and Promise: One visitor speaks as YHWH, using Yahweh’s own name and authority in promising a son to Abraham and Sarah — a hallmark of divine speech rather than angelic proclamation alone.
Human Worship and Interaction: Abraham’s actions — bowing, addressing them in the singular as “my lord,” and engaging in covenant dialogue — reflect recognition of divine presence, not merely polite reception of guests.
Discrepancy Between Appearance and Ontology: The visitors appear as ordinary humans but are operationally supernatural. Two are later identified as angels in Sodom, while the third remains as Yahweh’s representative in dialogue with Abraham. This layered identity — human-like appearance, divine speech, and angelic mission — is consistent with other biblical theophanies where God appears in human form (e.g., to Manoah’s parents in Judges 13).
These features suggest a mediated theophany: God reveals Himself in a way that humans can encounter (visible visitors) while maintaining divine otherness. The narrative’s emphasis on hospitality, promise, and accountability underscores the encounter’s theological gravity, not merely its moral exemplarity.
Conclusion
Genesis 18’s three visitors resist simple categorization as either mundane travelers or strictly anthropomorphic God. Instead, multiple narrative and theological signals point to an interaction with divine or heavenly figures that function within a divine council motif:
The text’s framing blends YHWH’s presence with angelic agency, matching divine council hierarchies.
Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern contexts include heavenly hosts and councils under God’s sovereignty.
Theophany features — authoritative speech, human reverence, and heavenly mission — reflect mediated divine encounter.
Thus, reading these visitors as divine council beings who participate in God’s cosmic governance and interact with Abraham offers a cohesive interpretive lens. It respects textual complexity, aligns with broader biblical imagery, and highlights the significance of this pivotal covenantal moment.
Selected Bibliography
Primary Text
The Holy Bible, Genesis 18–19 (Hebrew text and major English translations)
Heiser, Michael S. (video / lecture material accessed via Bing link). Discussion on Genesis 18 and divine council imagery.
Secondary Scholarly Works
Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015.
Walton, John H. The Lost World of the Old Testament: Ancient Israelite Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2018.
Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Collins, C. John. Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006 (esp. methodological notes on divine appearance).
Arnold, Bill T. Introduction to the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014 (sections on divine messengers and theophany).
Small Group Study Questions (Genesis 18)
Theological Implications If the visitors are understood as divine council beings participating in a mediated theophany, how does this affect our understanding of God’s sovereignty, judgment (Genesis 18–19), and covenant faithfulness?
Textual Observation Genesis 18:1 states that “the LORD appeared to Abraham,” yet Abraham sees three men. How does this tension between divine identification and human appearance shape your reading of the passage?
Divine Council Framework Other biblical texts (e.g., Job 1–2; Psalm 82; 1 Kings 22) portray God presiding over heavenly beings. How might those passages help us understand the role of the three visitors in Genesis 18?
Theophany and Mediation Why might God choose to appear through human-like figures or heavenly messengers rather than in an unmediated form? What does this suggest about God’s desire for relationship and accessibility?
Hospitality and Revelation Abraham shows hospitality before fully understanding who his guests are. What connection does Genesis 18 make between faithful hospitality and divine revelation?
The Joseph narrative (Gen. 37–50) presents one of the Hebrew Bible’s most sustained reflections on suffering, providence, and restoration. Betrayed by his brothers and sold into slavery, Joseph experiences prolonged affliction through servitude, false accusation, and imprisonment before his elevation to authority in Egypt. This narrative arc is not merely biographical but theological, portraying divine sovereignty at work within, rather than apart from, human injustice.
A critical but often underexamined moment occurs prior to Joseph’s reconciliation with his brothers: the naming of his sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41:50–52). In the Hebrew Bible, naming frequently functions as a theological interpretation of lived experience, encoding meaning, memory, and confession. The narrator’s explicit preservation of Joseph’s naming explanations signals their interpretive importance.
Joseph names his firstborn Manasseh (מְנַשֶּׁה), declaring, “For God has made me forget (nashani) all my hardship and all my father’s house” (Gen. 41:51). The Hebrew root נשה (nashah), often translated “to forget,” does not imply amnesia or repression. Rather, within biblical and rabbinic usage, it conveys release from the dominating power of memory. Joseph’s past is not erased; it is rendered non-determinative. Rabbinic commentators emphasize that Joseph continues to remember his family and heritage, indicating that “forgetting” here refers to healing rather than denial.¹ This is a foreshadowing of a later theme of God holding no record of wrongs as an indicator of the way that His followers should also live.
Joseph’s second son is named Ephraim (אֶפְרָיִם), derived from the root פרה (parah, “to be fruitful”), accompanied by the declaration, “For God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction” (Gen. 41:52). Notably, Egypt is still described as ’erets ‘onyi—“the land of my suffering.” Fruitfulness does not follow removal from affliction but emerges within it. The text thus resists any simplistic theology in which blessing is contingent upon the absence of suffering. It is a direct correlation to the Yahweh identifying Himself differently from the “other” ancient “gods” that functioned solely on the retribution principle.
The sequence of these names is theologically decisive. Healing (Manasseh) precedes fruitfulness (Ephraim), and both occur prior to forgiveness and reconciliation with Joseph’s brothers (Gen. 42–45). The narrative therefore distinguishes between inner restoration and relational restoration. While reconciliation ultimately requires repentance, truth-telling, and transformation on the part of the offenders, healing is portrayed as a divine act that does not depend upon the moral readiness of others. God’s restorative work in Joseph begins while the relational rupture remains unresolved.
This narrative logic challenges the assumption that closure or apology is a prerequisite for healing. Joseph’s story suggests instead that divine healing reorders the self, freeing one from the formative power of trauma and making space for generativity. Reconciliation, when it comes, is no longer a desperate need but a fruit of a healed identity.
Canonical Resonances: New Testament and Revelation
This pattern—healing preceding fruitfulness and reconciliation—finds resonance within the New Testament. Jesus’ invitation in Matthew 11:28 (“Come to me… and I will give you rest”) addresses interior restoration prior to the resolution of external conflict. Likewise, Paul’s theology of suffering in Romans 5:3–5 traces a movement from affliction to endurance, character, and hope—an internal transformation that precedes eschatological vindication.
In Revelation, similar logic governs the experience of the faithful. The saints are depicted as conquering (nikaō) not by escaping suffering but by faithful endurance within it (Rev. 12:11). The promises to the churches repeatedly emphasize fruitfulness, reigning, and restored vocation as outcomes of perseverance rather than prerequisites for divine favor (Rev. 2–3). Healing, symbolized by access to the tree of life and the wiping away of tears (Rev. 22:1–5; 21:4), is ultimately God’s work, accomplished even while injustice and opposition persist.
Within this broader canonical framework, Manasseh and Ephraim function as typological witnesses to a theology of restoration in which God heals before resolving every relational or historical wrong.
Healing is not the end of the story, but it is the condition that makes genuine fruitfulness—and ultimately reconciliation—possible.
Second Temple Jewish Parallels: Healing, Memory, and Fruitfulness in Exile
Second Temple Jewish literature provides important conceptual parallels to the pattern evident in Joseph’s naming of Manasseh and Ephraim, particularly with respect to memory, healing, and divine fruitfulness amid unresolved exile. These texts frequently wrestle with the problem of how God restores individuals and communities before historical or political reconciliation is complete.
In several Second Temple sources, remembering and forgetting function not as opposites but as theological tensions. Sirach, for example, acknowledges that past wounds are neither erased nor ignored, yet insists that wisdom enables one to live fruitfully without being governed by injury (Sir. 30:21–25). Here, healing is portrayed as an interior reordering that precedes external change—a conceptual parallel to Manasseh’s role as release from suffering’s formative power.
Similarly, the Wisdom of Solomon frames affliction as the context in which divine fruitfulness is cultivated rather than negated. The righteous are described as disciplined through suffering so that they might bear enduring fruit (Wis. 3:1–9), a logic that closely mirrors Ephraim’s naming as fruitfulness within the land of affliction. Vindication is future-oriented, but transformation occurs in the present.
The Dead Sea Scrolls further reinforce this pattern. In the Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns), the speaker repeatedly testifies to divine healing and restoration of the inner person while remaining socially marginalized and eschatologically unresolved (1QHᵃ). Healing precedes deliverance; identity is stabilized by God before historical redemption is realized. This reflects a theology in which God’s restorative work is not delayed until covenantal enemies are defeated or exile is reversed.
Of particular relevance is the Second Temple preoccupation with Joseph as a paradigmatic righteous sufferer. In works such as Joseph and Aseneth and later expansions of the Joseph tradition, Joseph is portrayed as morally transformed and divinely favored long before reconciliation with his brothers occurs. His interior faithfulness and divine blessing function independently of familial restoration, reinforcing the distinction between personal healing and relational reconciliation.
Moreover, Second Temple Israel broadly understood exile as an ongoing condition—even after the return from Babylon. Healing and fruitfulness were therefore conceptualized as provisional, anticipatory realities rather than final resolutions. This framework illuminates the theological significance of Manasseh and Ephraim: Joseph embodies a form of restored life that flourishes prior to—and apart from—the full repair of covenantal relationships.
Within this Second Temple horizon, Joseph’s sons function not merely as narrative details but as symbolic markers of how God restores the faithful amid incomplete redemption. Healing reorients memory; fruitfulness establishes vocation; reconciliation, when it comes, is a subsequent and contingent grace rather than the precondition of wholeness.
Conclusion
Joseph’s story reminds us that God’s work in our lives is often deeper—and earlier—than we expect. Long before reconciliation arrived, long before the family wounds were reopened and named, God had already begun healing Joseph’s heart. Manasseh testifies that God can loosen the grip of pain that once defined us. Ephraim bears witness that fruitfulness can emerge even in places we would never choose.
This matters for us because many of us are waiting. Waiting for an apology. Waiting for understanding. Waiting for relationships to be repaired. Joseph’s life gently but firmly tells us that healing does not have to wait. God is not constrained by unfinished stories or unresolved conflict. He is able to restore the inner life even when the outer circumstances remain broken.
That does not diminish the value of forgiveness or reconciliation—Scripture still calls us toward both. But it does free us from believing that our wholeness depends on someone else’s repentance. Healing is God’s gift, not the reward of closure.
So the invitation is simple and hopeful: bring the wound to God. Let Him name it, tend it, and release its power over you. Fruitfulness will come in time. But healing, as Joseph’s sons remind us, can begin now—even before the story is finished.
Footnote-Style References
Rabbinic tradition: See Genesis Rabbah 91:1, which emphasizes that Joseph’s “forgetting” does not negate memory of his father or covenantal identity, but reflects relief from suffering’s grip.
Lexical: Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), s.v. “נשה,” noting semantic range including release and neglect rather than cognitive loss.
Narrative theology: Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation Commentary; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1982), 331–334.
Suffering and fruitfulness: Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1989), 286–288.
Naming as theological act: Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 47–62.
Canonical resonance: Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: CUP, 1993), 84–102.
Sirach:Ben Sira 30:21–25; see Michael W. Duggan, Sirach (New Collegeville Bible Commentary; Liturgical Press, 2016).
Wisdom of Solomon: Wis. 3:1–9; see John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Westminster John Knox, 1997).
Dead Sea Scrolls:Hodayot (1QHᵃ); see Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space (Brill, 2004).
Joseph traditions:Joseph and Aseneth; see Ross Shepard Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Exile as ongoing condition: N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Fortress, 1992), 268–272 (used here for Second Temple Jewish worldview rather than NT theology).
At the heart of covenant faithfulness is trust in God Himself. Abraham “believed the LORD, and He credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6). This pattern carries through Scripture: covenant faithfulness begins not with works, but with confident reliance on God’s promises (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17).
2. Obedience Flowing from Love
Obedience is not the covenant’s foundation but its fruit. Israel was called to walk in God’s ways because they already belonged to Him (Exod 19:4–6; Deut 6:4–6). Jesus echoes this covenant logic: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Faithfulness is lived out through responsive obedience.
3. Communion & Sabbath Rest
The Sabbath functions as a covenant sign of communion, trust and faithfulness (Exod 31:12–17). By resting, Israel confessed that their life and provision came from God, not their own labor. Sabbath-keeping embodied faith in God’s sustaining care and faithfulness.
Circumcision – Washing of Feet – Baptism – Communion
At first glance, practices such as circumcision, foot washing, baptism, and communion can feel foreign—even uncomfortable—to modern readers. Yet within the biblical story, they are deeply connected. Each functions as an embodied sign through which God teaches His people what covenant faithfulness, belonging, and transformation look like.
In the Old Testament, circumcision served as the covenant sign given to Abraham and his descendants (Gen 17:9–14). It marked the body and permanently reminded Israel that their identity and future depended entirely on God’s promise. It was not merely a ritual act, but a visible declaration that God creates life where human ability fails.
Foot washing appears in the Old Testament as an act of hospitality, humility, and purification (Gen 18:4; 19:2; 1 Sam 25:41). In a dusty world, washing another’s feet signaled welcome and relational submission. This cultural practice laid the groundwork for its deeper theological meaning in the New Testament.
Baptism emerges in continuity with Old Testament washing rites that symbolized cleansing and renewal (Exod 29:4; Lev 16:4; Ezek 36:25). These washings pointed forward to a more complete purification—one not merely of the body, but of the heart. In the New Testament, baptism becomes the covenant sign of union with Christ, symbolizing death to the old life and resurrection into new life (Rom 6:3–4).
Communion, like circumcision, is a covenant meal. It echoes the Passover, where Israel remembered God’s saving act through a shared, embodied practice (Exod 12). Jesus reframes this meal around Himself, declaring the bread and cup to be His body and blood—the means by which the New Covenant is established (Luke 22:19–20). Communion continually reorients the Church around Christ’s sacrificial faithfulness.
Foot washing reaches its theological climax when Jesus washes His disciples’ feet (John 13:1–17). In this act, Jesus unites cleansing, humility, and love. He demonstrates that covenant belonging in the New Testament is marked not by dominance or status, but by self-giving service. The act does not replace baptism or communion but interprets them: those who have been cleansed by Christ are called to live cleansed lives marked by humble love.
Together, these practices reveal a consistent biblical pattern. God teaches spiritual truths through physical actions. Covenant faithfulness is not abstract; it is embodied. Circumcision marked God’s people as recipients of divine promise. Washings prepared them for holy presence. Baptism unites believers to Christ’s death and resurrection. Communion sustains them through continual remembrance and participation in Christ’s life.
What seems strange to modern culture is, in Scripture, profoundly intentional. From Genesis to the Gospels, God forms His people through signs that engage the body, the community, and the memory—shaping not only what they believe, but how they live.
Diving deeper into Circumcision
Communion functions in the New Covenant in ways that closely parallel how circumcision functioned in the Old Covenant. In the Old Testament, circumcision was the covenant sign given to Abraham and his household (Gen 17:9–14). It did not create the covenant; rather, it marked those who belonged to it. Circumcision identified a person as part of God’s covenant people and continually pointed back to God’s promise to bring life where human ability had failed.
Similarly, communion does not establish the New Covenant but bears witness to it. At the Last Supper, Jesus identified the cup as “the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). Each time believers participate in the Lord’s Supper, they are visibly and repeatedly reminded that their life with God is grounded not in their own faithfulness, but in Christ’s sacrificial death.
Both circumcision and communion are physical, embodied signs of spiritual realities. Circumcision marked the body and permanently reminded Israel that their existence depended on God’s miraculous promise. Communion involves tangible elements—bread and wine—that engage the body and senses, proclaiming that the Church’s life flows from Christ’s broken body and shed blood (1 Cor 11:26).
Both signs are also communal and covenantal, not merely private. Circumcision incorporated individuals into a covenant people, shaping their identity and responsibilities. In the same way, communion is a shared meal that proclaims unity in Christ’s body (1 Cor 10:16–17). Participation affirms belonging to the covenant community and submission to its Lord.
Finally, both signs call for faithful response and self-examination. Circumcision without covenant loyalty was condemned by the prophets (Jer 4:4). Likewise, Paul warns against receiving communion in an unworthy manner, detached from repentance and love for the body of Christ (1 Cor 11:27–29). In both cases, the sign points beyond itself to a life of faithful trust and obedience.
In short, circumcision marked Israel as a people created by God’s promise, while communion continually re-centers the Church on the saving work of Christ. Different signs, same covenant logic: God gives a visible marker to remind His people who they are, how they were redeemed, and upon whom their life depends.
Circumcision appears nearly one hundred times in Scripture and plays an important role in both Old and New Testament theology (Rom 4:9–12; Gal 2:1–12; 5:1–10). At first glance, this emphasis can seem strange. Yet Scripture treats circumcision as a serious theological symbol, not a mere cultural practice.
In Genesis 17, circumcision is given as the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham. However, it was not unique to Israel. Many peoples in the ancient Near East practiced circumcision, including Israel’s neighbors (Jer 9:25–26), as well as cultures in Egypt, Syria, and Phoenicia. Historical and archaeological evidence shows that circumcision existed long before Israel emerged as a nation. This suggests that circumcision alone did not set Israel apart from surrounding nations.
What made circumcision distinctive was not the act itself, but the promise attached to it. When God commanded Abraham to be circumcised, Abraham was beyond the age of fathering children, and Sarah was past childbearing years (Gen 18:11). Yet God promised that through Sarah, Abraham would have an innumerable offspring (Gen 17:21; 18:14). The covenant, therefore, depended entirely on God’s miraculous intervention.
Circumcision marked the household of Abraham as participants in a promise that could only be fulfilled by God. At the time, the meaning of this sign may not have been fully clear. Its significance became evident when Isaac was born. That birth confirmed that Israel’s existence was not the result of human strength, but of divine faithfulness.
From that moment on, circumcision served as a lasting reminder that Israel owed its life to the Lord. It pointed back to the miracle that brought the people into being and continually reinforced their dependence on God’s covenant grace.
In the New Testament, circumcision no longer defines membership in God’s people. As Paul teaches, belonging to God’s family is no longer marked by a physical sign, but by faith in Christ (Gal 5:6). Paul even links circumcision to baptism (Col 2:10–12), showing that both are covenant signs grounded in faith. In Christ, God’s people—men and women alike—are marked not by the body, but by trust in the saving work of God.
CONCLUSION
Biblical covenant faithfulness is God’s work of creating and sustaining a people through promise, and the faithful response of that people lived out in embodied trust and obedience. From the Old Testament to the New, God marks His covenant not merely with ideas, but with visible, physical signs—circumcision, washings, baptism, and communion—that remind His people that their life comes from Him alone. These signs do not create the covenant; they testify to it, pointing beyond themselves to God’s saving action. Covenant faithfulness, therefore, is trusting God’s promise, receiving His cleansing and provision, remembering His saving work, and living humbly and obediently as His redeemed people.
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.
When you harmonize the gospels, you likely come to the conclusion that Jesus called the disciples 3x. The last time He gets very specific and asks them to leave everything on the beach, don’t look back, stay with Me completely and “walk” completely with Me. In our modern Western world this first century calling to discipleship seems almost impossible. I have spent my whole life challenging myself and other people to this level of discipleship, and I am just about convinced that in modern America people just aren’t willing. I have found one exception… seminary training. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case with all seminary experiences but at The King’s Commission (TKC) we believe that this is the closest pathway to what first century discipleship under Jesus would have looked like. Study daily, be mentored, read, listen, discuss, dive deep into a community that is likeminded to experience the full breadth (completeness) of Jesus and the Church.
What a time it must have been, when Jesus shared his words and heart with his disciples (students) for the three years of his earthly ministry! They saw his compassionate healings, marveled at his miraculous power, listened to his word, saw his glory (Matt. 17:1-13), were humbled by his servant-leadership (Matt. 20:25-28, John 13:1-20). We believe you can still experience that same feeling with Jesus through TKC.
Seminary is something similar to those three years with Jesus. In many ways, of course, it is different. Jesus didn’t need to teach his disciples how to read Hebrew and Greek. He didn’t need to teach them post-canonical church history, because at the time there wasn’t any. And although he didn’t give letter grades, he regularly evaluated their progress. TKC has sought to stay as true to this dynamic model as possible.
Discipleship is about commitment, not to a program or a pattern but to the person of Jesus Christ.
Perhaps one of the Western world modern challenges we face is to see seminary throughout the context of discipleship rather than simply education. Seminary is more than academic training; it is a spiritual journey. The Latin “seminarium” or “seedbed”—captures the deeper purpose: cultivating hearts that bear spiritual fruit. Seminary, properly pursued, fosters a “taproot” in believers—vertical depth before horizontal spread—so lives become steadier, more rooted, and more fruit-bearing.
A testimony from one of the students that Dr. Ryan has discipled and now is regularly involved with in local church ministry, Paul Lazzaroni:
My own seminary experience (Paul) shifted my perspective. The draw to a deeper understanding of the scriptures came simply from a hunger to know Christ more. After a previous failed attempt at a well-known Bible College, 7 years later I was invited to apply at seminary. It wasn’t until I handed in some of my first course work that my understanding of seminary began to shift from simply retaining information to spiritual transformation. My advisor challenged me not just to retain facts but to articulate why I believed what I believed. That invitation to integrate intellect and devotion opened a deeper adoration for Christ. Many Western educational systems emphasize information retention; seminary (like Hebraic Torah study) invites transformation, not mere accumulation of facts.
For me, this wasn’t just a different way of seeing education, this was a journey down a path that the early disciples took with Jesus.
Hebraic culture treated study as a spiritual discipline linked to life and covenant faithfulness. Torah study functioned as devotion and formation, shaping how people lived before the LORD. From Eden through Sinai to Jesus, Scripture consistently calls for faithful allegiance expressed in obedience and transformed hearts. The word seminary itself is not nearly as old as the scriptures, but the heart behind the journey through seminary ties directly into the first and greatest commandment of Jesus “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ Mat 22:37
The word seminary (seminarium) means “seed bed”. Even our word semen finds its origins here. Semen without an egg to fertilize is a source of life that is seeking a host. Humankind is designed to replicate the source of life that heals, that restores, and that multiplies that which gives life, but the spirit of God needs a seed bed and Jesus himself consistently goes back to talking about the heart of the matter as though this is the seed bed of the human being.
Paul’s example in the New Testament reinforces this same type of spiritual journey. Despite his rigorous education as Saul, his encounter with Christ began a multi-year (14) process of spiritual formation (Acts 9; Galatians 1). Conversion was a beginning that required unlearning, relearning, and sustained growth. Seminary can be that structured season of deepening, where encounter and study mature into faithful living.
Over centuries, what ought to be a life-changing journey of spiritual study has sometimes become a path to prestige, income, or institutional advancement. From the establishment of the early church, there has been a slow evolution away from this type of devotion towards educational advancement. In the 15th and 16thcentury, the church experienced a large pivot deeper into the intellectual moving further away from the spiritual journey. This pivot began with a bold, spirit led move by Martin Luther to stand up against the hierarchical system that the Catholic Church had established, however much of what we still experience today is a war of the minds. The downfall of humanity began when we attempted to reason through all the things of life without the spirit of God. In doing so, we give up is the divine journey with Jesus himself as the teacher. When theological training serves personal gain rather than formation, the church loses its capacity to cultivate compassionate, faithful leaders—gardeners rather than dictators. Seminary must resist reducing theology to a résumé item; it should invite humility, compassion, and a lifelong devotion to learning and obedience.
For those of us who have had simply one encounter with Jesus, we know that it was a profound spiritual moment. My prayer would be that there was a flame that was lit. If you have yet to do so, seek out the fan that ignites that flame. Over the centuries, what was meant to be the most incredible journey of our lives by means of study, has transformed into hierarchical astuteness for the advancement of primarily worldly pursuits. This transformation of higher education has led to the creation of many learning systems that operate without spiritual context and in my opinion simultaneously void the presence and power of the spirit of God.
If seminary is understood as a seedbed for spiritual formation, it belongs to any disciple who wants to deepen devotion, understanding, and faithful practice—not only to those who pursue clerical office. It equips Christians to study Scripture faithfully (hermeneutics and exegesis), to integrate head and heart, and to live a long-haul obedience that reflects covenant faithfulness. This is the direct invitation from Jesus, the ancient of days, the word become flesh, the author and perfecter of life. Let us not waste our eternal invitation to follow in the dust of him. I pray the path of Yahweh draws many into this kind of lifelong study and devotion.
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: Ecclesiastes 3:1 NIV
Whenever I read Ecclesiastes, I can’t help but to start humming “Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There Is a Season)”, a song written by Pete Seeger in the late 1950s. The lyrics are adapted nearly word-for-word from the English King James Version of Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. In the U.S., the song holds distinction as the number one hit with the oldest lyrics. I sometimes Joke that Seeger got more people to memorize scripture than any pastor in history. However, you remember it, at some point you have likely contemplated the questions it raises. Although I am sure you have hummed the tune, too many people go through life without ever stopping to “really” ponder a very simple question, “what connection do you have to Jesus and His kingdom and what should that mean to you in this life?” That is the question Ecclesiastes raises to their audience and is as relevant 2500 years later, today – as it was the day it was written.
I am often perplexed by busy western culture people. There seems to be a conundrum of life that might have us too busy to simply stop and think through life or perhaps enable those thoughts into life-change. Those that have learned to stop and smell the roses have often been met with innumerable blessing. Different people react to different things and perhaps for you it is a song, or a movie, a passing of a loved one, or tragedy that has challenged you to stop and consider some of the more philosophical questions of life and reconsider what means most to us.
Mircea Eliade was a Romanian philosopher, and professor at the University of Chicago who became one of the most influential scholars of religion of the 20th century and interpreter of religious experience, he established paradigms in religious studies that persist to this day. He helped us recognize the “myth of eternal return” in the ancient world. The idea that every culture has had some kind of circle of life (as Disney later adopted it). From the Aztecs 27,000 year cycle, to the Hebraic 50 years of Jubilee year, including every seven years a sabbatical year, most cultures have recognized some cycle of life. In our culture New Years is a day of rethinking the past and taking on a resolution to do better in the coming year. In some way shape or form, I think everyone has considered the notion of re-examining their life cycles with the hopes to take action to a better way of life.
There is a relational connection of words in the New Testament that are translated as belief, faith, and hope, and what they all have in common is the notion of reliance, confidence, and trust. It is trust that puts you in contact with God so you can draw upon his unlimited and inexhaustible character. Unfortunately, many folks have their faith lined up in such a way that they do not need to rely on God. They do not need to trust God. They have a proper faith in terms of what they need to believe to go to heaven when they die, but they hope that God is never going to put them in a position of needing to actually trust him before they go there. It is this sort of “grappling” or “wrestling” in our faith that often brings us to a better sense of life.
Jon Gibson has uncovered something beautifully for us. As we reflect, remember, resolve and contemplate things more significant in this life, I am betting that we have seen seasons and have hopefully travelled to a better place of life through these journeys. But perhaps the best is yet to come for you. Perhaps there is something more going on in this life. Maybe there is a sense of orchestration in the ordinary that has led us to beautiful places even in the messiness or busyness of our modern life cycles. Most of us wouldn’t choose the courses of our past but we also wouldn’t choose to remove them from our lives. That seems to be an ontological fact of existence that we have in common. We are on a sentient journey. Jon tells story after story that you will find yourself not only deeply engaged with, but then turning your thoughts inward to consider your own journey and be shepherded to a better understanding of God’s majestic and far-reaching love, grace, and compassion.
What about you? Have you ever wondered about the greater questions of your faith? What about relationship dynamics and how they are influenced by God? Have you thought about legacy and the little things that point to the greater aspects of your spiritual person? What about taking the time to work through some if these thoughts, a mind retreat that engages action. In the big picture, if you are part of God’s family, we are all part of a return to Eden. But maybe that is less about heaven and more about your choices today. There is still time for God to being Heaven to earth through you. I think you will find that this book might be just what you need to start moving towards these feelings in your life.
I pray that in the pages of this masterful piece that you will find peace, comfort, and a sense of direction in the fact that somehow God is working out His plan within the pages of your life journey. Behind it all is His invisible hand. That’s comforting. Perhaps in the tears and fears, joy and grief, success and failure, helping and hurting; we will understand the immense love that Jon has so beautifully given us through his connections to Jesus. I pray that on this journey you may be captivated by these seasons and find a sense of peace but also action.
“The more beauty of God you capture today in your heart today, the greater the beauty you will find in your next season.” Don’t cast your seasons to the wind until you have grabbed hold of its beauty and set it in your heart for eternity.
Dr. Will Ryan
President of the King’s Commission School of Divinity
_____________________________________________
This article is intended to be a catalyst to Jon Gibson’s book “HERE AND NOW” to be released in 2026.
For the more “scholarly “academic” version of this article CLICK HERE.
#1 There is no physical description of Jesus in the Bible.
It’s difficult to believe, but we don’t really know what Jesus looked like, there’s no actual description of Him in the Bible.
#2 David had blood on his hands.
Before David was 18 years old, he killed 200 Philistines as a dowry for marriage to King Saul’s daughter. In the middle of his life, David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen (2 Samuel 10:18) or seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen (as recorded in 1 Chronicles 19:18). David killed every male in Edom (1 Kings 11:15.) Then in 2 Samuel 11, towards the end of his life, David sleeps with Bathsheba, and has her Husband killed. Some attest that David killed under God, or that God was ok with it but 1 Chronicles 22:8 seems to say otherwise, it tells us that God did not to allow David to build the temple: “You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight.” Furthermore, according to 1 Chronicles 21: 1, 5-14 God killed 70,000 men because of David’s continued sins. In one of his final acts as King of Israel, David gives his son and heir Solomon a hit list — “a last will and testament worthy of a dying Mafia capo,” says Bible scholar and translator Robert Alter — and the biblical scene may have been the inspiration for the final scene of The Godfather.
#3 The shortest verse in the Bible Is two words (three in the original Greek).
John 11:35 says that after his friend Lazarus died, “Jesus wept.” In Greek, it’s actually three words, Edakrysen ho Iēsous, but it’s still the shortest.
#4 The complete Christian Bible has been translated into 756 languages.
This is approximately 10% of all existing languages.
#5 The number of books in the Bible varies.
All Christian Bibles contain at least 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament for a total of 66. However, numbers vary between different Christian denominations. The Catholic Bible contains 73 books, while Orthodox Bibles contain between 79-86 books since there is no universally sanctioned canon in the Orthodox churches.
#6 The Bible is the best-selling book in the world.
The Guinness Book of World Records says the Bible is both the best-selling and the most widely disseminated book in the world. (It is also the number one shoplifted item in the world.)
#7 God is never specifically alluded to in the Book of Esther.
In this book, Esther is a Jewish heroine who ultimately saves her people from a murderous plot. However, one interesting fact about the book of Esther is that God is never mentioned at all in the story, causing some, such as Protestant Reformer Martin Luther, to argue that it shouldn’t be included in the Bible at all.
#8 Genesis contains two different stories of the creation of humans.
Genesis 1 says God created humans who merely appear at his insistence. But in Genesis 2, God forms a man (Hebrew: Adam) out of dust and breathes life into him. Later, he takes a rib from Adam to create Eve. Some say the story is recursive, some say it is a continuation of the first story.
#9 Many common phrases in the modern world originated with the Bible.
“Apple of my eye” — Deuteronomy 2:10 “Wolf in sheep’s clothing” — Matthew 7:15 “By the skin of our teeth” — Job 19:20 “Drop in the bucket” — Isaiah 40:15
Some have attested that there are more than 300 of these.2
#10 It wasn’t until the 13th century CE that chapters and verses were added.
The Masoretes were groups of Jewish scribe-scholars who worked from around the end of the 5th through 10th centuries CE. Each group compiled a system of pronunciation and grammatical guides in the form of diacritical notes (niqqudniqqud or nikud “dottin), on the external form of the biblical text in an attempt to standardize the pronunciation, paragraph and verse divisions, and cantillation of the Hebrew Bible. However, there are approximately 875 differences in opinion on the interpretation of the punctuation throughout the Hebrew Bible. 3 The Masoretes devised the vowel notation system for Hebrew that is still widely used, as well as the trope symbols used for cantillation.4 The original writings of the Bible had no divisions between verses (or even letters). Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury, created the modern chapter divisions in 1227 CE.
#11 We have no original writings of any Biblical book.
One shocking fact about the Bible is that the manuscripts we have of every book of the Bible are copies of copies of copies of copies, etc.
#12 Paul probably didn’t say that women should be silent in church.
In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is instructing the church at Corinth on how to worship in an orderly manner. Suddenly, though, in verses 34-35, he writes several sentences about how women should not speak in church. Scholars have long recognized that a later scribe probably added this to Paul’s letter. If you take out those sentences, the book makes more sense.
#13 The book of Genesis was written by three different authors.
Most people think Moses write all 5 books of the Torah, but scholars would strongly disagree. Genesis alone was written by at least three authors. As we don’t know specifically who the authors were, we call these authors J, E, and P. The J source called God “Yahweh” (J is the first letter in the German spelling of Yahweh). The E source called God “Elohim” and the P source stands for “priestly” since that author was mostly concerned with ceremonial rules and requirements for priests. The author of Deuteronomy is also then referred to as “D” as he seems to be another author.
#14 The oldest complete Bible dates to the 4th century.
It’s called Codex Sinaiticus and contains the entire Old and New Testaments, plus some books that were later excluded.
#15 The authors of the New Testament read the Greek version of the Old Testament — called the Septuagint —rather than the Hebrew.
This led to some interesting mistranslations. One of the most interesting was made in Isaiah 7:14 which says “Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.” The Greek translation, however, changed the word “almah,” meaning “young woman,” to “virgin.” This would later be used by the author of Matthew as proof of Jesus’ virgin birth.
The Bible is God’s Word, and the Word was flesh, but the Bible isn’t God or Jesus Himself. Does that actually make sense?
Have you allowed the Bible to Replace Jesus? Can the Bible become an Idol?
A good friend of mine has put it like this, “Biblicism assumes every verse carries the same weight, that Leviticus 20 and Luke 15 should be read exactly the same way—regardless of covenant, context, or Christ. That sounds faithful. But it’s not.5
Because when every word carries the same weight, you can make the Bible say anything you want.
And today, that’s exactly what’s happening. Verses are ripped out of context to extort personal motives To silence grief. To justify violence. To control others.
The Bible was never intended to be a theological text.
The Bible is primarily a narrative love story of covenant faithfulness, one encounter after another telling stories of transparent interactions with the Lord.
The Bible is told in times of ancient cultures and characters that may or may not have application to us today. It was not written to us but for us.6 There isn’t anything systematic about it. We attempt to codify, analyze, and organize and to some degree then lose touch with the central theme, the growing disconnection between humanity and the God that created them with intention of exactly the opposite, growing infinitely together, rather than apart. We want to read the story through our own western eyes, but the genre falls far short of those expectations. The Bible is a book about failures and triumphs, despair and hope and the river of human emotions of living in this broken world. The text speaks to us, not in creeds and doctrines and religious acronyms but in very plain verbiage that appeals to all.
Brian Zahnd, puts it this way,7 I’m an ancient Egyptian. I’m a comfortable Babylonian. I’m a Roman in his villa. That’s my problem. See, I’m trying to read the Bible for all it’s worth, but I’m not a Hebrew slave suffering in Egypt. I’m not a conquered Judean deported to Babylon. I’m not a first century Jew living under Roman occupation. I’m a citizen of a superpower. I was born among the conquerors. I live in the empire. But I want to read the Bible and think it’s talking to me. This is a problem.
The Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and other first century groups didn’t necessarily share the same “canon” (the word didn’t even exist at that time) but they did have sacred writings, writings that facilitated their practice of living according to God’s will. When you really think about the relationship between our chosen Bible and the religious practice of groups today, it’s pretty much the same thing. Perhaps we need to keep this in mind when we engage in debate about the meaning of any particular text.8
That said, the Holy Spirit does not provide an unambiguous interpretation of every given text. Every time we read the Bible we have to interpret what we read. Interpreting just means making sense of a text—it is not a special skill reserved for difficult passages. The ways we go about making sense of the Bible will be influenced by our frames of reference and cultural expectations. Sometimes these can interfere with our ability to hear the intended meaning of the biblical authors.
Keeping in mind the origin of the Bible and overall purpose of Scripture can help orient our expectations as we read. When reading a particular text, we should consider the author’s intentions, literary forms and conventions, language, and cultural background of the original audience.9
Vernon K. Robbins in his book, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation says that words themselves work in complicated ways to communicate meanings that we only partially understand” and in “that meanings themselves have their meanings by their relation to other meanings”. Given these presuppositions, any serious reader will benefit by exploring the multiple layers or the many textures of texts.10
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8 NASB
The Bible is not a Western scientific book. Its categories of reality are not the categories of our scientific perspective. Its view of life is not the compartmentalized packaging of research. It does not seek to predict and control. “The categories of the Bible are not principles to be comprehended but events to be continued. The life of him who joins the covenant of Abraham continues the life of Abraham. Abraham endures forever. We are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.”11
Heschel’s insight should cause us to reconsider how we regard the Bible. In the West we are likely to view the Bible as a sourcebook for spiritual insights or a jumbled systematic theology or a God-inspired Boy Scout handbook of answers to life’s perplexing questions. What we usually do not think about the Bible is that it is simply a record of God’s encounters with Israel. We don’t see the Bible as a story, a recollection of the emotional involvement of God and men. We think of the Bible as a book of spiritual information rather than a history of divine encounters. Heschel is right. If we think of the Bible from a Western point of view, we will look for the “21 irrefutable principles” rather than recognizing the emotional reaction of awe. We will read the Bible as if it were Fodor’s guidebook to life on earth rather than reading it as the expressions of men and women who discovered God’s presence along the way.
When Isaiah says that the “word of our God” stands forever, does he mean that all those theological categories, divine attributes, creedal answers, and holy platitudes are eternal? Or does he mean that the experience of God found in prophetic revelation is always life transforming? Is Isaiah writing about Messianic prophecies or is he describing what it means to be overwhelmed by God’s holiness? If “word” debar is the speaking of God (not the written words in our biblical texts), then the record we have is not the same as hearing God’s word. The record is second-hand information; the voice is the direct encounter with majesty. Perhaps the Bible is what’s left over after God reveals Himself.12
FOR FURTHER STUDY:
If this is a new conversation to you I would recommend starting with Simply Christian and then trying The Day the Revolution Began both by NT Wright. The first book will give you a scent of Wright’s Big Story, and the second wades into the details. Wright’s genius in my opinion is challenging the questions that Luther and Calvin tried to answer when reforming the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century. He is an evangelical writing to evangelicals. But he thinks that evangelicals should basically start over when interpreting the Bible’s bigger story. While I do not end up subscribing to everything he maintains, listening to him challenge long-held views within the Western Christian tradition is refreshing and will lead us to think for ourselves, especially when trying to rethink our original questions.
Vernon K. Robbins. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996. x + 148 pp. $15.00, paper, ISBN 978-1-56338-183-6. ↩︎
What does it look like to give all of yourself to Jesus?
Hebrews 13:5 – Let your way of life be free from the love of money, being content with what you have, for He Himself has said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.”
DISCUSSION QUESTION: How much do you give to the Lord?
In the classic Old Testament Hebraic mindset the answer should be, “all that you have been given.” In other words, everything is the Lord’s and should be given back to Him. You have simply been entrusted to the “assets” of the kingdom for a short time. This is the circular dance of grace. (Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament by David A. DeSilva)
DISCUSSION QUESTION: If anyone from the group understands the dance of grace based on patronage please explain it to your group. This can be found in my book “This is the way to covenant community” on Page 161.
In our western thinking this is likely where we get the original audience’s interpretation of Biblical giving wrong… thinking that God just requires a tithe (confused with OT passages), or that there are no strings attached to Grace.
Grace is free but it also might have some strings attached. To be clear, Grace is totally free, but if you’re going to follow the Lord then you should follow the Lord with all that you are and have been given and freely give back all that you are and have been endowed with- which to some sounds like attached strings.
To most Americans the idea that God wants everything doesn’t sit very well. What would alter calls sound like if we told people the whole story before we asked them to put their hand up! It even becomes more uncomfortable as Christian Americans when you ask somebody if they love money. Nearly every American does. Christian Americans are in a little bit of a wrestling match because they want to proclaim that they don’t love money; yet the giant mortgages, lifelong debt, and working around the clock every week say otherwise. It sure looks like we all love money, and that’s actually the implication of I Timothy 6:10.
The word “love of money” is philarguros, literally, “a friend of silver.” This is a Greek verb that was used in the scriptural context to describe brothers and sisters of one body (which we like to call the church in present day language -that’s up for argument though.) Today, it would seem that money is root of more church problems and family dynamics than anything else I can think of. That’s why TOV doesn’t want much to do with it. It didn’t seem like Jesus wanted much to do with money and His version of first century “church” didn’t either. Have you ever considered the idea that Judas was the money keeper and the one-time Jesus was asked to pay for something it didn’t come from that bag, but from coins out of a fish his Father provided? What could that imply? Jesus didn’t own a church building but occasionally visited the temple which He does refer to as His father’s house.
Essentially the Hebraic way of living is that your complete life is a gift. This gift is a reciprocal dance mirroring what God has given you. Total humility, complete giving back of what you have been given, and utter devotion to your Father.
In the hands of the follower of the Way, contentment is a sign of trust in the grace and mercy of God. From the biblical point of view, the only reason a man or woman can entertain contentment is because God is good. His provision is sufficient. Greed leads away from Him and towards the love of things of the world separating us from the Love of Christ.
Is the love of money or money itself the root of evil? I don’t really think it matters… what matters is that God wants all of us to mirror all of what God has given us. And from the biblical authors mindset money had very little to do with any of that kind of thinking. It is the posture of the heart.
DISCUSSION QUESTION: How does God view your money? Does He even want it? Is the Money the World’s? But don’t we need money? Is it a “necessary evil?” of the world? How does it belong in a Jesus kingdom?
DISCUSSION QUESTION: We often say, TOV isn’t looking for a tithe. Discuss why a more Biblical perspective isn’t centered around “money or serving” but on deeper devotion of your “whole” person.
TOV ACTION NEEDS FOR YOUR DISCUSSION:
BECOME A MONTHLY “PATRON” PARTNER – Discuss how this mindset is different than a tithe
Sometimes we don’t give much to the donation boxes and it is hard to bless people when need arises. We want to bless generously. Consider gifting monthly so that we can buy people groceries, feed the hungry & homeless, and take a financial strain off a family for a season. There aren’t any tov salaries, mortgage payments or utilities to pay… all of your giving goes right to an ACTS 2 need. Together we can make a better kingdom investment. Right now We want to buy a car for another anonymous family and need $2500 that we don’t have.
We need car donations; we have a mechanic that will fix things. And we can give away these cars or sell them on the marketplace. If you know of someone selling a car ask them to donate it.
Giving: You don’t need to “make time or space” for God if all of your time, treasure and talents (sacred space) are His. In the same regard, you don’t need to consider giving a percentage of your financial resources if you are of the mindset that it is all His and you are merely the Spirit led steward of it.
Some have chosen to underwrite the few costs we have as “patron” partners. If you would like to dedicate a regular monthly amount, please do so here:
If you read my article earlier this month on Demons, you will know that I lean somewhere close to Walton in my views of demonology but still gravitate towards a “fall” of spiritual beings, which Walton would not describe in that sense. Walton points out that the bible doesn’t specifically use the word “fall” and Adam and Eve don’t actually “fall” in the sense of being cast out or demoted. I think he has made some great points to this regard, and I completely agree. In our original sin x44 series we brought out many of these points. He would then make the point that the bible actually never says that any of the spiritual being’s “fall” either. In my mind that one is a bit more controversial and where I slightly see things differently. I see a Deuteronomy 32 (Heiser) worldview in a sense of several other “falls” primarily concerned with spiritual beings which also involves human beings.
As a precursor to this conversation, I don’t necessarily like the term “fall” to describe Adam and Eve (as well as the serpent’s) banishment from the garden for many reasons, but I get the terminology traditionally applied. I do however see spiritual beings “falling” in the sense that they were created by the hand of God and are no longer aligned with Him in the heavenly cosmos. Therefore, I am ok with calling this a “dual fall” as people traditionally would understand it, to describe the free will intention of being’s pursuit away from God. In this sense we might think of it as God being high in the heavens, and the things of the world being low in an earthly realm. You might even describe a third realm as something associated with an underworld. In that sense, I am fine using the traditional term “fall” to describe what has happened to distance beings further from God’s sacred space. Even Walton titles a chapter “the fall” in his latest book simply because people know what we are referring to when we use the term.
DECONSTRUCTION: The Bible mentions Satan and spiritual beings, but it doesn’t actually give us much, and we likely conclude that we simply don’t have all those answers here. We don’t know what all the spiritual beings are, where they are now, and what has happened and will happen to them. We don’t have that story. What we do have is a different story about God’s covenant love to us that includes a few interesting things about spiritual beings along the way. What does the Bible give us in order to influence or make a faithful deduction from? We have a story of God’s unyielding covenant plan for us, the rest might be cloaked. 1
It is a fantastic read. One of my all-time favorites.
To be clear, the book explores a lot of areas that I don’t address here. This article is meant to address one part of the book, – the fall, which has been a personal interest of mine most of my life. In our interview we also approach theses subject matters:
Genesis 1: order and function
Previous material overview
New explorations in the first creation account
What is each day about?
Image of God- what is it about?
Creation out of nothing?
Genesis 1: Cosmic temple and rest
Previous material overview
Spreading order vs Spreading sacred space
Ruling vs relaxing on the 7th day
7 day inauguration?
Literary vs. Chronology
what does this means for human priesthood?
Genesis 2: The Garden and Trees
Previous material overview
Should we consider the garden to be a pristine paradise?
Should we think that we are headed back to eden (Revelation does have some parallels to the Gen 2 account)
Genesis 2: Adam and Eve
Previous material overview
Nakedness and the clothing of flesh
What does it mean that they are archetypes? Does this mean they were not “real”?
Humans created immortal?
Were they “perfect”?
Genesis 3: The Fall
Previous material overview
Serpent- How should we understand his role?
Death before the fall?
Is the origin of sin the focus of Gen 3? Are Adam and Eve being punished for sin?
Romans 5- How is Paul using the Gen 3 account there?
Genesis 3: The Pronouncement
What is going on in Gen 3:16?
Should we consider it messianic?
Why the guardian with the sword?
Genesis and science (we actually didn’t get into this because we have discussed it with him several other times in other interviews.)
Previous material overview
What are some of your new explorations in this area?
Is the Bible compatible with evolutionary models (godless models)?
If I have learned one thing from John over the years, it is to approach the interpretation of scripture more faithfully. This one is a lifelong endeavor of joy, and I am still learning! He starts out his latest work similar to his other works giving a methodology to his study, but in this case, he denotes over 50 pages to it rather than just a few. I won’t do that here (but I love what he does in the book to teach a better framework before he launches into it.), I do think we need to set the table slightly here before we start this discussion as well. Some think Walton is controversial. I don’t. As you read this article you are going to find that I nearly completely agree with him, especially in a purely exegetical sense, however – I desire to make more ontological, philosophical, and theological deductions than he might be willing to do. I will say that I think those that find him controversial fall into three camps. 1.) They want to be traditional and feel they are “standing strong.” I don’t have a lot of room for this take on the Bible. Essentially it is those that are willing to put tradition over the exegesis of the text. 2.) You don’t really have sound hermeneutics; you don’t understand the parameters. I think there is a good deal of this. People that don’t have sound framework or a good theological lens of the Bible. They don’t have the Bible in harmony. 3.) They just want a debate. I have some good friends in apologetics but honestly, I can’t stand the hierarchical “want to prove something” debating within primarily the evangelical circles. I think we need to get back to the edification of the church through a positive Mars Hill style teaching. Walton is very good here. I think there are 2-3 theologians that are ahead of their time that we will be reading in 100 years (such as we do with CS Lewis) and Walton might very well be the best we have.
Genesis 3 and the fall is difficult to interpret for many reasons. One of which is because you first might need to interpret Genesis 1 & 2 and decide whether you land in the recursive or sequential camp, believe it or not there will be implications along the way. It is also quite interesting because we have the Adam and Eve narrative in Genesis 3 and from that point on, we never hear anything else about it in the rest of the OT, and barely in the new. Chapter 3 is also sometimes interpreted under a poetic lens which might belong to a speculative type of wisdom literature that questions the paradoxes and harsh realities of life. This characterization is determined by the narrative’s format, settings, and the plot. The form of Genesis 3 is also shaped by its vocabulary, making use of various puns and double entendres.2 Furthermore, the Hebrew of a few words really does matter, and I would argue that we can’t arrive at an exact meaning for many reasons. The serpent, is identified in Genesis 3:1 as an animal that was more crafty than any other animal made by God.3 The Hebrew arum עָר֔וּם (Gen 3:1), is traditionally translated “crafty/shrewd” but could be connected linguistically with Genesis 2:25 עָרוֹם (arom) sharing the same root word.4 In this sense, traditionally the text has been read with a connotation of mental “nakedness” (innocence), yielding a more direct antonym for “shrewd” and heightening the irony. Then to complicate matters further, you have the realization that these words in the older Hebrew had no vowel signs which could render them to be understood slightly differently. Some might say this becomes a study of Philology. The Masoretic Texts and LXX are useful to fix meanings of terms and expressions, but they also are not the Gospel. I spend a lot of time describing contranym language in the ancient texts in blogs here so if you are a regular x44 watcher/reader, you will be tracking. Finally, if we are reading the narrative as if it intended to primarily communicate the origin of sin, I would question your doctrinal premises. All this said, I still believe we can come to a faithful “take away” of the text.
The serpent as the challenger
Was the spiritual being (serpent) in the Garden of Eden Satan? Of course, tradition and extra biblical sources tell us that, but do we really get that from the pages of scripture? The Bible doesn’t give us that in the same regard that it doesn’t tell us that the challenger in Job is Satan. If you believe either of those it would be a deduction from somewhere else, the text itself doesn’t render those takeaways. Walton calls the serpent a chaos creature that he doesn’t frame as evil. He says, “The serpent never suggests that they should eat the fruit, though by questioning what reasons they have for not doings so, it leads them (Adam and Eve) in that Direction… (the serpent) serves in the role of catalyst. It should not be identified as a tempter, nor should it should not be considered inherently evil. Certainly, it should not be seen as an evil force already in the world. “5 So, I agree with most of what Walton says here. We have a conundrum that has to be addressed. We both agree for numerous reasons that the serpent can’t be evil and be in the garden. I will spend more time on this later, but in my opinion, allowing an “evil” snake in a sacred garden wouldn’t align with God’s order. This leaves three options. The first is Walton’s option – It isn’t evil it is just a chaos “monster.” The second option would be understanding it as dual fall happening together (my view) – the serpent is falling as he is “tempting” Adam and Eve. The third view is the traditional view which doesn’t work in my opinion (but I will spend some time on it further on) – The snake is already evil and somehow gains access to the garden. As we explore these three options, the question hinging on this then is, “was the snake displaying sinful (The Greek term for sin “hamartano” (ἁμαρτάνω) – “to miss the mark”) or evil action? I agree that Adam and Eve are to blame for their own decisions (neither I, nor Walton, or Heiser would agree with any theory close to original sin or total depravity here, we are only responsible for our own actions). Is the snake also acting in free will in a way that (using the Bible’s own definition) – would be missing the mark for a free will thinking spiritual being? I would say traditionally the snake has always been portrayed as cunning and I would agree. It is also interesting (but I agree with Walton, we aren’t given an exegetical answer here) that the snake is portrayed as a challenger which is also representative of the challenger in the book of job. The question that will define this is whether or we can interpret the text to indicate that the free will serpent had “evil” intention.
The Challenger of Job
X44 did a long video series on the book of Job. Is the challenger of Job a.) the Satan of the NT and/or b.) the same spiritual being as the snake in the garden? We don’t know the answer to this directly from scripture. We know that the “challenger” of job is seemingly involved at a divine court or council meeting6, but the genre7 of the text would also come into play, as well as the timing as we make an educated assessment.
The language of the Book of Job, combining post Babylonian Hebrew and Aramaic influences, indicates it was composed during the Persian period (540–330 BCE), with the poet using Hebrew in a learned, literary manner.8 Although controversial, the story of Job could take place much much earlier and be handed down orally over generations. If you haven’t learned this yet, our lens of theology on a particular subject is influenced by other personal views of theology in regard to other subjects. Our theology needs to fit from one framework to another and be in harmony. The difficulty with rendering the challenger of Job as the NT Satan figure is that either has him in cahoots with God after the garden (which most people can’t -and rightly shouldn’t -theologically accept according to the order and character of God). Or that leaves you either saying it simply isn’t Satan, or we don’t know (certainly seems like the simplest choice without much in stake), or it is Satan, and the story takes place before the garden banishment, which you might be surprised to hear is my view. I go with the simple we don’t know here but also would suggest that if we are going to start guessing I lean towards the challenger of Job as the NT Satan figure. But this becomes very complicated.
Adam was the first man, but the Bible doesn’t say Eve was the first woman, in fact quite contrary, it says there were no other suitable partners. I am sure you have also heard stories of a first spirit wife named Lilith. The implication is there were other woman and thus other people. In other words, we have the story of Adam and Eve in the mountain high cosmic temple garden (that I believe were functioning as the first priests) but you also have the rest of humanity in lower earth (notice the Tolkien language). At first you will challenge me on this, but the more you think about it the more you are going to find that theologically the view makes the most reconciliation or harmony of the texts. This view then would have the challenger of job playing a role in the divine council, then doing something similar in the garden. This is when you could still reconcile Walton’s view. The challenger might not be inherently evil, but just positionally fulfilling his role or function in the divine council as a challenger and do so in the garden similarly to what he did in the book of Job. But I have to “question that,” there are too many things that don’t align.
The Challenger (serpent) in the garden missed the mark
I believe the serpent “falls” in the garden which then sets the tone for the other spiritual beings to follow suit.
Genesis 3:2-4: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
I am going to land more traditionally lining up with the way people have thought about this text largely over the last 3000+ years. In Genesis 3:4, the serpent’s statement, “Ye shall not surely die,” plainly read seems like an act of deception. This declaration directly contradicts God’s warning, suggesting that disobedience would not lead to death, which sets the stage for Eve’s disobedience and the subsequent “fall” from a life-giving provisional hand and tree of grace. The serpent’s words create doubt and lead to Eve’s temptation. I would say that this is where the serpent crosses the line and thus “falls.” If you have deconstructed enough to still be with me, then continue the line of logic – the snake whose vocation was to challenge is then kicked out of the garden, but the Bible doesn’t say this again, it has to be deduced (but that’s ok, that is part of theology). However, don’t get me wrong, the banishment was similar to Adam and Eve’s. I don’t see the snake actually losing his function completely because he was off the mark, neither did Adam and Eve as Walton points out. I see the “fall” in both cases then happening as archetype’s of what is to come. Both the snake and Adam and Eve make their own choices to be separated. The garden story then simply describes the beginning of “the fall” or the handing over to their decisions/desires, both of which are to seize wisdom for themselves and become like God.9 Could the job story be chronologically slightly after this? Maybe but it doesn’t fit the “fall” narrative as well. I see the deception of the snake being met with perhaps a demotion of the heavenlies (cast down to lower earth to crawl on its belly.) The snake is clearly cursed. This movement by God then has the snake feeling like he was wrongly demoted (as he might argue he was just playing his kingdom given role of a challenger) and eventually aligns other spiritual beings that follow him “down” likely becoming his “minions.” (Although I will admit, this notion is lacking exegetically as well, I will get to that.) From there perhaps the challenger of job and serpent seems to arise as the leader of the cosmic bad guys in the second temple period and New Testament. Nearly all of the intertestamental apocalypse literature seems to point this way. If they had that in mind, perhaps we should too, but it also doesn’t make it true. Of course, your view of inerrancy and the canon is going to influence thoughts here as well as you make your own decisions.
Do we get the answer in Hebrew? That is a great question, and it is really complicated. As I described in the inro the Hebrew is rather difficult to make any kind of deduction from in my opinion. Is there any semantic link or word play going on with nakedness or a sense of transparency? Could you interpret in Gen 2:25, as an adjective (in a ‘static’ mode) ‘naked’ – without a veil (seen differently from many other beasts that are covered or veiled by hair, bristle, quills, spines, plates)? In this sense it could be explained that the Serpent (spiritual being) claimed to be a “being without a (mental) veil”, and capable, too – in this state – to help others to remove the “veil from their mind’s eyes”. Of course that denotes ill intentions. And in this capacity the Serpent presented himself to Eve, claiming to be a revealer to her, since her ‘closed eyes’ were not capable to ‘see’ (Gen 3:5, 7). In the matter we are discussing (orumim/orum) we are facing with a kind of ‘semantic oscillation’, where two terms could be derived by the same conceptual root.
It is true that the Hebrew word and phrasing could be interpreted without a negative or evil intention – “missing the mark” connotation. For instance, in the ten times the word arum was used in the book of Proverbs, it pointed towards a positive attribute. To be arum was a good thing, and it was always directly compared to a naive (peh’ti) person or a fool (eh’wil). You could say that if we take the Proverb’s use of the word arum and apply it to the Genesis account, we can see that the snake was the crafty prudent character and humanity was the fool. To take this notion one step further, this specific root can only be found (arguably) in a negative connotation in one other place in the Bible, Job 5:12. In other words out of 11 occurrences 9 seem positive and two could be interpreted as negative. I always found it interesting that Jesus took the concept of the shrewd serpent and applied it to his own disciples in Matthew 10:16-20. So coming back to the text, I would argue that the word arum could go either way here, so then we go back to textures of interpretation – what does the context give us? Do we get the answer in 3:14:
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
As I allude to earlier, the use of the word “curse” is key here. Many have made the point that God doesn’t curse Adam and Eve, but the serpent is cursed by God. What does that tell you? We don’t have that answer but I have to say the text certainly infers something negative in the curse. I have a difficult time reading this (even after much deconstruction and unbiased training) to read it without a negative connotation. (i.e. does God curse chaos monsters?)
Could a fallen or “evil” Satan exist in the garden?
Okay, what about the traditional view—could this have been an evil (already fallen) Satan who showed up in the garden to tempt Eve? There are a number of problems with this that I am not convinced can be reconciled within a solid hermeneutical approach to the text. Perhaps the only way this works in a traditional sense would be to say that the serpent was created good but fell before the garden story. Some literalists lean toward this view, suggesting that Satan was essentially “possessing” a snake. Therefore, when it ‘spoke’—which you might argue a snake cannot do—it was Satan speaking through it as an already fallen, evil being.
The difficulty, then, is how does an evil snake get into a sacred garden? God’s order seems to be disrupted, but the question is whether this could be possible. Everything in the garden was good, except Satan, and perhaps the (could you say) “evil” of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In this view, God did not create evil; evil is the very antithesis of God. But regardless of one’s view, there is a fruit in the garden referred to as “evil.” That seems to imply some conception of evil existing in the garden.
Now, we need to address the translation issue here. The Hebrew word for “evil” in Genesis is ra’ (רַע). However, ra’ does not inherently mean “evil” in the sense of a malevolent force or being. It is more accurately translated as “bad,” “disorder,” or “calamity.” The concept of “evil” as a metaphysical, moral entity distinct from God is not necessarily what is being communicated here. Instead, ra’ can refer to anything that is not aligned with tov (goodness/order), but it is not necessarily the ontological evil that later Christian theology would define.
In the context of the garden, the focus is on “the knowledge of good (tov) and ra’.” The emphasis is not on the intrinsic evil of the tree but on the human choice to engage with ra’—to experience and define for themselves what is good and what is not. It’s about autonomy, the desire to determine what is good and what is bad apart from God’s established order.
We see the consequences of choosing ra’ in Genesis 6:5, where it says, “The LORD saw that the wickedness (ra’) of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil (ra’) continually.” The ra’ in Genesis 6:5 is not some inherent, ontological evil but the chaotic, disordered state that humanity descended into after choosing ra’ in the garden. It is a natural progression—a consequence of rejecting tov and embracing autonomy.
In Romans 1:24-28, Paul describes a similar dynamic, where God “hands them over” to their desires. God is not directly causing evil but allowing humanity to experience the consequences of choosing ra’ over tov. In this way, God’s “wrath” is not active punishment but a passive allowance for people to reap the consequences of their choices. This same dynamic is at play in the garden. God is not bringing evil into the garden; rather, He is allowing Adam and Eve the freedom to choose, to step outside of His tov order, and thus enter a state of ra’.
For instance, in Isaiah 45:7, God says, “I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create calamity (ra’).” Here, ra’ is not moral evil but calamity or disorder brought as a consequence. And “make” and “create” are two different words in hebrew where God makes shalom and “orders” (br’) ra’. Similarly, in Amos 3:6, it says, “When disaster (ra’) comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?” Again, the emphasis is not on moral evil but on God allowing or ordaining calamity as a form of judgment or consequence.
Therefore, the ra’ in the garden is not an ontological evil but the potential for chaos, disorder, and calamity—a choice that leads to a state of ra’, as seen in Genesis 6:5. When humanity chooses to step outside of God’s good order, what remains is ra’—a state of disorder and chaos. This is not about a fallen Satan bringing ontological evil into a sacred space but about humanity’s choice to step outside of God’s established order and thus bring ra’ into God’s good creation.
Thus, the serpent, then, functions as a tempter, not a cosmic evil being, leading humanity to embrace ra’ as the absence of tov, aligning with the pattern seen throughout the biblical narrative of God “handing them over” to the consequences of their choices. This interpretation avoids the theological problem of making God the author of evil while still accounting for the serpent’s role in the narrative.
But getting back to the traditional view and consideration of it; through the snake, if you can reconcile evil being allowed in the sacred garden then perhaps Satan falling early (possibly before the creation) and showing up in the garden can work for you. But again, the traditional interpretation hinges on the assumption that the serpent represents a pre-fallen Satan who is already evil. However, as discussed earlier, the Hebrew concept of ra’ is not inherently “evil” as in a cosmic, malevolent force. It is more accurately understood as disorder, calamity, or badness—essentially a deviation from tov (goodness/order). This nuance becomes crucial when considering the nature of the serpent and the so-called “evil” present in the garden.
If we accept that ra’ in Genesis does not inherently indicate a cosmic evil but rather the potential for disorder and chaos, then the serpent may not be some intrinsically evil being but rather a creature operating within the framework of ra’—a tempter, yes, but not a pre-fallen Satan in the classic sense. The text itself does not state that the serpent was Satan, nor that Satan was a fallen being at this point.
Satan put the words in Eve’s mind that caused or gave way for her to make a decision to disobey God’s command. That warranted banishment by God to both Eve and the snake, who traditionally is viewed as Satan, an instrument of evil. But here, we run into further problems. If we adopt the traditional view that Satan had already fallen, we are left with the question of how a fallen, evil being could be allowed into the sacred garden—a space characterized by the presence of God’s tov order.
Some might say that God “allows” Satan into the Garden similar to the book of Job, which could be seen as a test for Adam and Eve, giving them the choice to obey God’s command or succumb to temptation. Yet, in the Job narrative, Satan is depicted as a member of the divine council (Job 1:6-12), not a pre-fallen being operating as an evil entity. The Satan figure in Job is portrayed more as an accuser or tester, not the cosmic evil adversary developed in later Christian theology. Thus, to read Genesis 3 through the Job lens is problematic and potentially anachronistic.
I don’t see God operating with the enemy this way. To me, seeing God negotiating with the enemy is theologically problematic. If God is negotiating with a pre-fallen Satan to test humanity, this casts God in a complicit role in the introduction of ra’ (disorder) into the sacred space, making Him a participant in the very disorder He is meant to oppose.
Others wonder if by presenting the choice between obedience and disobedience, God established a framework for humans to exercise their moral agency or responsibility. But this still has God and Satan in cahoots. From a theological standpoint, some Reformed and Calvinist traditions suggest that God’s sovereignty encompasses even the activities of Satan, allowing Satan to enter the Garden as part of a divine test. However, this framework positions God as the author of evil, effectively undermining the character of God as wholly good and holy.
This interpretation also fails to account for the consistent biblical narrative that God is not the author of ra’ but rather the one who brings order from chaos (Genesis 1:1-3). To frame Satan as an already fallen being actively working with God in the garden disrupts this order and introduces theological inconsistencies.
All of this has us asking, did God “allow” a “fallen” Satan to tempt his sacred image bearers? Well, God certainly allows us to be tempted, as is clear in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 4:1; 1 Corinthians 10:13). But the context of Genesis 3 has a different feel. The serpent is depicted as a cunning creature, not as a cosmic enemy of God. There is no explicit indication that this serpent is Satan or that it is a fallen being acting in opposition to God’s order.
I am not sure the best theological plan has sacred space invaded by literally the most evil entity the world has ever known and God seemingly working with Him. Everything we read in the New Testament is contrary to this. Satan is depicted as the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), the “accuser of the brethren” (Revelation 12:10), and a “roaring lion” seeking to devour (1 Peter 5:8)—but these depictions are framed in a post-fall, post-Genesis context. The New Testament portrays Satan as having already been cast down, not as an evil entity roaming freely in God’s sacred space.
Did Satan’s place with God change later in the Old Testament? Could the “fall” have even been later when the extra-biblical material got so apocalyptic? Possibly. This is an option for a later fall, but again, it goes against the traditional view of an already evil, pre-fallen Satan in the Garden.
The real issue here is that the traditional view seems to require theological gymnastics that complicate the narrative and obscure the focus of Genesis 3. The narrative seems more concerned with humanity’s choice to step outside of God’s tov order and embrace ra’, not with the cosmic conflict between God and a fallen Satan. Therefore, to frame the serpent as an already fallen Satan may be to import later theological constructs into the Genesis text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself within its own ancient Near Eastern context.
When did Satan “Fall”
As we continue our last set of questions we then start to ask, when exactly did Satan and the other spirits fall? Before creation, during early Genesis, towards the end of the OT, or are they continuing to fall until the day of judgment? One of the more enigmatic verses in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells his disciples, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” -Luke 10:18. Hesier points out, perhaps the most common interpretation is that Jesus is seeing or remembering the original fall of Satan. This option makes little sense in context. Prior to the statement, Jesus had sent out the disciples to heal and preach that the kingdom of God had drawn near to them (Luke 10:1–9). They return amazed and excited by the fact that demons were subject to them in the name of Jesus (10:17). Jesus then says, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”10 Personally, I view this as an already not yet. It was a Christus Victor, at the cross, CS Lewis style regaining the keys over death victory. In this sense I think the words “like lightning from heaven” was a very clever word play of double proportion that Jesus seems quite well known for. The language style used by Luke (“I saw”) was apocalyptic in prophetic visions, especially in the book of Daniel (Dan 4:10; 7:2, 4, 6–7, 9, 11, 13, 21). But I also don’t see the final culmination of this until the second coming of Christ. Therefore, I see it as past (Satan falling seems to be how everyone else in that generation would have interpreted it) and yet to come. This fits my theology well in first understanding how the intended audience would have interpreted it, then applying it to the modern day “see it all” lens that we have for everything biblical. To sum it up, I agree with Walton that the Bible never actually describes or concretely gives us the details of a fall, but I think it is a logical and theological deduction. This conclusion seems obvious, since the New Testament identifies the serpent as Satan or the devil (Rev 12:9). The implication of seeing Eden through ancient Near Eastern eyes is that God was not the only divine being. God had created humankind as his imagers and tasked them with bringing the rest of the world outside Eden under control—in effect, expanding Eden through the rest of creation. God’s will was disrupted when an external supernatural tempter (I think challenger is a better word), acting (cunningly) autonomously against God’s wishes, succeeded in deceiving Eve.11
Satan in Ezekiel 28 & Isaiah 14
Ezekiel 28:1-19 and Isaiah 14:12-15 are pivotal passages often cited to support the traditional view that Satan was already a fallen, evil being by the time he appears in the garden of Eden. However, a closer examination of these texts, along with a more nuanced understanding of the Hebrew language and ancient Near Eastern context, suggests a different narrative. Rather than depicting a pre-creation fall of Satan, these texts situate the divine rebel’s fall within the context of pride and hubris connected to earthly rulers and their supernatural counterparts.
Both Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 are structured as mashal, a Hebrew term meaning a “comparative story” or “taunt.” The prophets are not merely describing historical kings but using these figures as representative echoes of the original deceiver in Eden. In both cases, the kings of Tyre and Babylon embody the characteristics and trajectory of the divine rebel in Genesis 3.
Isaiah 14:4 explicitly introduces the passage as a mashal against the king of Babylon. The text reads:
“You will take up this taunt (mashal) against the king of Babylon” (Isa 14:4).
The prophet is comparing the king’s pride and downfall to that of a celestial being who sought to elevate himself above the stars of God—a clear echo of the serpent’s desire to corrupt humanity’s allegiance to God in Genesis 3. This heavenly being in Isaiah 14 is depicted as seeking to ascend the divine council, placing himself above the other divine beings, only to be cast down to the earth (erets), the realm of the dead.
Similarly, in Ezekiel 28, the prophet uses the king of Tyre as a comparative figure. The king, adorned with precious stones and positioned as a guardian cherub, is described as being in Eden, the garden of God. The language is strikingly similar to descriptions of divine beings in other ancient Near Eastern texts, portraying this being as resplendent, powerful, and shining—an image associated with the divine council.
“You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone was your covering…
You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.” (Ezekiel 28:13-14)
The king’s pride and hubris are directly connected to the serpent’s role in Genesis 3, echoing the desire to elevate oneself above one’s appointed station, leading to downfall.
The kings of Tyre and Babylon, like the serpent and the first humans in Eden, chose ra’ over tov, disorder over divine order. The Hebrew word ra’ is frequently translated as “evil,” but its primary meaning is closer to “bad,” “disorder,” or “calamity.” In the garden narrative, Adam and Eve’s choice to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (tov and ra’) was not a choice between moral opposites but between divine order and chaos.
The same choice is portrayed in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. The king of Tyre’s exaltation to divine heights and his subsequent casting down is framed as a choice to pursue self-exaltation (ra’) over alignment with God’s order (tov). This choice mirrors the serpent’s enticement of Eve—to become “like gods,” knowing good and evil, a pursuit of autonomy apart from God’s appointed order.
In Isaiah 14, the king of Babylon is likened to helel ben shachar, the morning star. This term, later translated as Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate, refers to Venus, the celestial body that rises brilliantly in the morning but is quickly overtaken by the sun, symbolizing a being who seeks to ascend but is inevitably cast down.
“How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12)
The imagery here is not about Satan being named “Lucifer” but about the hubristic attempt to ascend to divine status, only to be brought low. The term Lucifer became associated with Satan through later Christian tradition, but the original context is a mashal, a comparative story about a celestial being seeking to usurp divine authority—a theme that resonates with the serpent’s ambition in Eden.
Adam and the Divine Rebel
Heiser’s critique of the Adam view is that it misreads the prophetic texts. In Genesis 3, Adam is not depicted as attempting to ascend to the divine council or exalt himself above the stars of God. Instead, he passively follows Eve in choosing ra’ over tov, effectively failing to uphold his divine vocation as an image-bearer.
In contrast, the divine rebel in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is characterized by active rebellion, pride, and the desire to ascend the divine council and claim divinity. The imagery of ascending to the mount of assembly (Isa 14:13) and walking among the fiery stones (Ezek 28:14) places this figure within the divine council, a realm Adam was never said to inhabit (though Eden was a mountain top garden- a divine council place).
The Rebel Spiritual Being and the Garden
In both prophetic texts, the hubris of thedivine rebel is the central theme. The king of Babylon, likened to the morning star, seeks to usurp divine authority, echoing the serpent’s enticement in Eden:
“You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly…
I will make myself like the Most High.’” (Isaiah 14:13-14)
This language mirrors the serpent’s enticement in Genesis 3:5, “You will be like gods.” The serpent’s offer was a lure to ascend beyond one’s station, to acquire wisdom apart from God’s ordained order. Thus, the divine rebel in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 is not Adam, but a divine being who, like Adam, chose ra’ over tov—autonomy over submission, chaos over divine order.
By framing Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 as mashal, the prophets are not merely recounting historical events but drawing a comparative picture that connects the fall of earthly kings to the original divine rebel in Eden. The king of Tyre and the king of Babylon are embodying the traits of the serpent in Eden—choosing pride, self-exaltation, and rebellion against divine order.
This comparative approach underscores the consistency in biblical narrative. The fall in Eden was not an isolated event but part of a broader pattern of rebellion against divine order, echoing through earthly rulers and spiritual beings alike. The kings in Ezekiel and Isaiah are thus depicted as archetypes of the original deceiver, figures who, like the serpent, seek to exalt themselves above their appointed stations and are cast down as a consequence.
In this light, the prophetic use of mashal reinforces the connection between the garden narrative and the broader Deuteronomy 32 worldview, where human and spiritual rebellions are intertwined, illustrating how earthly kings align themselves with the fallen powers and perpetuate the same cycle of pride and destruction initiated in Eden.12
Does Revelation 12 talk about the fall of Satan and one-third of the Spiritual Beings?
In the Deuteronomy 32 worldview, we observe a series of pivotal dual falls involving both divine and human agents: the fall in Eden (Genesis 3), the transgressions of the sons of God in Genesis 6, and the divine disinheritance at Babel (Deuteronomy 32:8-9; Psalm 82). The question then arises: Is Revelation 12 depicting a fourth fall involving Satan and a third of the angels?
Many interpreters have traditionally viewed Revelation 12 as depicting a primordial rebellion occurring in Genesis 3, where Satan is thought to have taken a third of the angels with him in his fall. However, a close reading of the text reveals a different timing and context for the event. Rather than referring to an ancient, Edenic fall, Revelation 12 situates the conflict within the context of Christ’s first advent, aligning it with the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension of the Messiah.
The passage begins with the imagery of a woman clothed with the sun, representing Israel, giving birth to a male child “who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12:5). This is a direct allusion to the messianic prophecy of Psalm 2:8–9, a prophecy that concerns Christ’s rulership rather than a primeval angelic rebellion. The child is “caught up to God and to His throne,” an unmistakable reference to the ascension, not to any event in Eden.
Michael Heiser critiques the traditional interpretation, noting that there is no scriptural basis for locating Satan’s fall in Genesis 3. He writes:
“There isn’t a single verse in the entirety of Scripture that tells us (a) the original rebel sinned before the episode of Genesis 3, or (b) a third of the angels also fell either before humanity’s fall or at the time of that fall.” 13
Heiser further emphasizes that the timing of the conflict involving the third of the stars in Revelation 12 is explicitly linked to the incarnation and exaltation of Christ. This interpretation aligns with Daniel 8:10, where the stars represent faithful members of Israel and their suffering under hostile powers, rather than fallen angels.
Revelation 12:7–9 describes a heavenly conflict in which Michael and his angels expel the dragon and his host from heaven. This event is framed by the birth and exaltation of the Messiah, not by the events of Eden. John explicitly identifies the dragon as “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan” (Rev. 12:9), but he does not associate the casting down of the third of the stars with Genesis 3.
The chronological markers are unmistakable. The casting down of a third of the stars is connected directly to the birth, death, and ascension of Christ—not to a rebellion in Eden. Beale notes that the defeat of the dragon occurs through Christ’s resurrection and ascension, aligning this passage with the inauguration of the kingdom of God and the consequent expulsion of Satan and his host. 14
Moreover, Revelation 12:13–17 continues the narrative by focusing on the dragon’s pursuit of the woman and her offspring—those who “keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (v. 17). This further confirms the eschatological focus of the passage, centering on the Messiah’s mission and the ongoing conflict between Satan and the church rather than a primordial fall.
Thus, interpreting Revelation 12 as a description of a fall of angels in Genesis 3 is a misreading of the text. Instead, the passage situates the conflict firmly in the context of the first advent of Christ, emphasizing Satan’s defeat through the Messiah’s resurrection and enthronement—a defeat that inaugurates the kingdom of God and the dragon’s intensified assault on the followers of Christ. This view not only aligns with the internal chronology of Revelation but also maintains consistency with the broader Deuteronomy 32 worldview, where divine and human rebellions are framed within specific historical and eschatological contexts rather than a single, primeval fall.
So back to our options. Did Satan fall before creation? I don’t think so, it doesn’t make sense in the garden “fall” narrative. By the intertestamental period and the tempting of Jesus we clearly have a “fallen” Satan. We also have a D32 fallen world problem early in Genesis that seems impacted by “fallen” spiritual beings and likely Satan rising as the cosmic leader of the evil “fallen” spiritual forces by the NT; therefore, as I have made the case for – the clearest choice theologically lining up with the rest of the lens of the Bible is for a dual fall in the garden.
The other “fallen” spiritual beings
So, then what about the rest of them? Back to my article on demonology. We don’t really have clear answers here either. The NT certainly talks about demons. I will admit there isn’t much if anything biblically that ties Satan specifically to other “fallen” spiritual beings. Revelation 20:10 is our best and possibly only source: “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.” We also have Matthew 12:24 and Luke 11:15 also refer to Satan as the prince of demons, but that also could be interpreted a couple of different ways. But there is an inference I believe towards Satan being the leader of the cosmic fallen spirits at least by the time of the cross.
Conclusion
After working through all the options, I think you either need to sit back and agree with Walton that the Bible just doesn’t give us the answers. And I agree with Him. That is all we can concretely take away or say. If you decide to jump on the deducing train, you are going to have a wild ride, but hopefully I have given you some good framework for making a better theological choice.
This article was Written by Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Matt Mouzakis based in part on the foundational research of our latest book, PRINCIPALITIES, POWERS, AND ALLEGIANCES: Interpreting Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17, and Revelation 13 within a Deuteronomy 32 Worldview and research from our good friends Dr. John Walton, and the late Dr. Michael Heiser to whom we are both in deep gratitude towards.
WORKS CITED AND NOTES:
A good friend of mine likes to remind me of the traditional difference between deducing and deducting. Traditionally these words are rendered differently. “Deduce” refers to the process of reaching a logical conclusion or inference based on available information or evidence. Deduce is a transitive verb, related words are deduces, deduced, deducing, deductive, deductively and the noun form, deduction. It involves using reasoning or logical thinking to arrive at a particular deduction. “Deduct” means to subtract or take away an amount or value from a total. Deduct is a transitive verb, which is a verb that takes an object. Related words are deducts, deducted, deducting and the noun form deduction. Either can take the form of “deduction”. However, ARTHUR F. HOLMES made the point to the Evangelical Theological Society in his text, ORDINARY LANGUAGE ANALYSIS AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD that the terms become increasingly complicated in modern English, and specifically within theological applications, “deduct” finds a place in most biblical conversation, as exegetically you come to what the text offers to which you can deduce something logically, but then as you apply it towards modern application (such as life) you are making a “take away from the text” statement which could be more accurately described as something “deducted.” Holmes and many others since them have continued to make the point that in proper English “deduct” doesn’t simply apply to math but also theology. Languages evolve and take on different nuances. Induction is another conversation. ↩︎
The Hebraic Roots Bible’s footnote on Gen 3:1 states (bold is mine): “The word for ‘naked’ in verse 25 [of chapter 1] and the word for ‘cunning’ are derived from the same root word in Hebrew.” ↩︎
Edward L. Greenstein (2019). Job: A New Translation. Yale University Press. p. xxvii. ISBN9780300163766. Determining the time and place of the book’s composition is bound up with the nature of the book’s language. The Hebrew prose of the frame tale, notwithstanding many classic features, shows that it was composed in the post-Babylonian era (after 540 BC). The poetic core of the book is written in a highly literate and literary Hebrew, the eccentricities and occasional clumsiness of which suggest that Hebrew was a learned and not native language of the poet. The numerous words and grammatical shadings of Aramaic spread throughout the mainly Hebrew text of Job make a setting in the Persian era (approximately 540-330) fairly certain, for it was only in that period that Aramaic became a major language throughout the Levant. The poet depends on an audience that will pick up on subtle signs of Aramaic.↩︎
Wow! This is awesome! We are super excited for you! The heavens are rejoicing! You just made a decision to welcome Jesus as your King, and the Bibe says, He is LORD of your life now! That might sound a bit strange to you in our modern culture using terminology that is thousands of years old, but the meaning of who and what Jesus does in our lives for those that follow Him hasn’t changed. Making a decision to follow Him is the first step, the next step is to make that a public confession to the world. We do this through baptism. Baptism is an outward sign of the inner decision and declaration you have made to faithfully follow Jesus. Your local church would love to help guide you through this step. I would suggest looking for a solid non-denominational or mainstream denomination church. Hopefully that church was part of the process where you already decided to follow Jesus. Your pastor would love to talk you through this! We are praying for new confidence in your identity as you begin to walk boldly in the power and presence of Jesus who is in you. WE DECLARE FREEDOM!
From there we encourage you to start deepening your relationship with Jesus and His word (the Bible), this is usually “shepherded” by the body of Christ we call the church. This is actually the main thrust of the message of the Bible, to live in fellowship together in devotion to the Lord. The Bible describes it like this, “As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.” Colossians 2:6. Walking is a metaphor for intimate relationship. To better help you understand this idea, and the path that you are entering, read the beginning of this post right now, it is short, and sweet, and can be read in a couple of minutes.
Ok so now you might have a better idea of the way that God loves you and wants to have a deep relationship with you gathered around the community of Jesus. Together we represent the presence of Jesus to the world.
Next you should get into the word of God, the Bible!
Somehow you found your way here to Expedition 44. Expedition 44 is known for super deep theological Bible studies geared towards seminary students. You are certainly welcome to read all the articles here and watch videos, but it might be over your head right now… (but I guarantee we have videos and articles that will answer your TOUGH questions about God and Christianity if you have that need or desire. Just use the search bar to the right.) The good news is the basic message of Jesus is pretty simple! You have a lot to look forward to and it won’t take you long to get there! That is the best thing about this walk, it is super exciting and before you know it, you will be filled with joy & surrounded by a great community on your way to a transformed life getting to know Jesus. This process begins by joining a small group at your local church and a Bible study where people get transparent and are welcoming. Make a commitment ty to attend church regularly being immersed in whatever “events” they are offering. Next, the Bible Project is an awesome organization that is known for great theology through simple animated videos that everyone from children to adults can glean from. They are my favorite online site. This is a great resource to start learning about the Bible and its truths.
Make some time and start a prayer life! We are all really busy to be sure, but the addition of walking with Jesus to an already full schedule can be one of the largest obstacles to overcome in a new faith journey. We’ve got two suggestions that can really help. 1. Be intentional. Make a plan to set aside time in your schedule to meet with God. 2. Get practical. In the time you set aside, make use of tools to help you connect with God. In the church we have often called these “spiritual practices”. Find a Bible reading plan to work through perhaps on the Bible app. (The Bible project – above, also has a plan for this.) Learn to listen and speak with God through prayer. Setting aside time in and of itself is a spiritual practice called “sabbath” which helps us overturn the oppressive “busyness” in our lives in order to make way (sacred space) for Christ’s new rule and reign in a partnership with us. Through this you will start finding a new destiny and fulfillment for your life centered in Jesus.
The faith walk is exciting, fulfilling, and offers a lot of transformative qualities for your life, but Romans 12:12 reminds us to “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” In the years to come you will experience some spiritual highs and lows. But remember that God promises to be with you, He asks for one step at a time towards Him. You will still “Miss the mark” occasionally, but that DOESN’T invalidate the commitment and growth we’ve already experienced. Some areas in our lives are a long triathlon, not a sprint. When you asked Jesus to come into your life, He actually does that! His spirit is now indwelling you and will act as a spiritual helper with you. Romans 8:26 reminds us that the Spirit helps us in our weakness. Even when we do not know what to pray the Spirit Himself intercedes for us!
Maybe you are in a season of healing. Sometimes in Jesus this is miraculous and immediate, but sometimes it is a steady course. We wouldn’t go into a rehab where someone has had a decades long addiction, and when they come to Jesus, expect them to never struggle. If you stumble, let your pastor and/or discipleship partner know, and they will lovingly help you back up and continue the path before you hand in hand. That is what community in Jesus looks like. Jesus us here for you and the church is the physical hands and feet of Him in our lives.
Okay anything else? Here are some next steps for people that think more analytically…
Find a local church and introduce yourself to the host people or pastors letting them know you want to get involved and take the next steps of discipleship (this is an important word to use with them.)
Find a friend to help you walk through this. I would suggest entering into a relationship with someone that can help you on a weekly basis. A scheduled cup of coffee each week, phone calls and text messages are great! This helps you stay on track! If you don’t have a person like this, ask your pastor to help!
Build a solid foundation. Get in the word every day. The paragraph above will be great for you!
Next, start building Godly relationships. The community of Jesus is important and central to the faith journey. You don’t necessarily have to leave your old friends; but in some cases, you might consider particularly if they aren’t good influences in your life, each person’s situation is unique. We want to encourage you to start walking with people that will edify or build you up in your faith and are on a similar trajectory with Jesus. This decision should be an awesome new launch or maybe restart for your life. We hope you never look back!
Be discipled and start discipling! I bet your thinking wait how can I disciple? I don’t even know what that means yet! Just tell your story! Tell your family, your friends and those you’re meeting at church. Give a testimony as to what God is doing in you.
Start praying! Don’t know how? We can help, but it’s pretty simple! Just start talking to Jesus! He hears and you will be surprised at all the ways that He answers back!
Attend a three day renewal weekend. Ask us how!
If you need help, don’t be afraid to reach out to your local church. If you aren’t sure about any of this text us! We will help you! 2629031887 -Dr. Ryan or 2623524938 -Pastor Josh
This post was written by Dr. Will Ryan of the Tov Community with special thanks from a think tank of other contributors such as:
EXPEDITION 44 