DOES SIN SEPERATE US | FROM GOD?

Posted by expedition44 on June 4, 2025

When I was in High school attending a rather large evangelical free church, we had some missionaries come in to train us on street evangelism. The idea was to memorize a step plan for salvation that we could easily regurgitate on the streets. The core of it was based on convincing someone that according to Adams sin we had been separated from God and that only by professing with our mouth and praying the sinner’s prayer could we escape eternal torment and damnation. As there is arguably some truth to that statement, the presentation not only created some terrible theological implications of the gospel message (both to those presenting and those being presented to) but also wasn’t necessarily the best Biblical framework. Of course, as “good” kids we all just went along with it, at least initially. As you can imagine this led to some really awkward conversations in the street and left several students wondering if this is what Christianity is all about whether they really wanted to be part of it. The following year a different but similar group came essentially “training” us to try to do the same thing evangelizing our hometown. But then something happened, this time (likely based on their previous poor experience) several of the students started to transparently challenge the process. I remember it almost as if it was the enslaved rebels of Star Wars questioning the empirical ideals. Questions like, “where does it actually say this in the Bible?” and “Do you really think this is the action that the text had in mind when it was written?” Another student said, “I don’t think I want anything to do with a plan like this, I didn’t come to Jesus to force my friends into submission.” I could go on and on. The training group couldn’t really answer them with any kind of logical explanations, and I was quite disheartened by the whole thing. The night resulted in half the youth group leaving early bailing on street evangelism to go out for ice cream; while the other half (some likely afraid of their parent’s repercussions if they left) continued with the group to evangelize. I am sure there was a small percentage of the “good” kids that convinced themselves this was what good Christian kids should do. I was also skeptical of Billy Graham “crusades” as a kid. And before I continue, I want to say that even though I still don’t entirely agree with these crusades and this kind of step plan evangelistic plans I do believe God uses it in powerful ways. I know many that came to faith this way and then over the course of time found a better theology. But my heart desires to say, let’s start with a better theology!

This youth group interaction was a monumental occurrence in my life that made me start questioning why Christians do what they do and whether the Bible actually said things like the church traditionally claimed. Instead of driving me away from Christianity, as some thought questioning the faith would do, it drove me towards a lifelong beautiful “expedition” towards understanding the incredible word of God and His nature. I don’t know of anyone who has had such joy in the journey. This is my love language, and I pray that it becomes yours.

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS WITH FRAMING SEPERATION FROM GOD THEOLOGY

The central question for your consideration is does the Bible actually say and teach what we have so often regurgitated that “sin has separated us from God?” I will start by saying any time you here a doctrine and you can’t find one verse that clearly states what the doctrine is attempting to “make the gospel say,” the best advice might be to run. If the intent of God was to give us some crafty 4 step plan of salvation wouldn’t that be clearly laid out somewhere in the text? Yet in the “ROMANS ROAD” plan of salvation we have to jump all over Romans back and forth to try to understand the so called laid out plan. Similarly, if a doctrine states something simply in one sentence such as “sin separates us from God” shouldn’t the Bible also state it similarly if it is true? That would make sense. Yet something as engrained in our head such as the statement, “sin separates us from God” doesn’t ever seem to be stated that way anywhere in the text. We deduce it. That doesn’t make it wrong or untrue, it just raises some hermeneutic red flags that should cause you the need or desire to examine it.

What verses then tell us that we are separated from God by Sin?¹ Here are the best ones coming straight from those that hold this type of framework:

Are there others? Well, if you think these are a stretch, the others that people claim support separation you’re going to have an even harder time with. These are the closest verses that the Bible has that state we are separated from God by our sin. If you google the question the first link will be “100 verses by open Bible Info”. I will say that almost none of them actually state we are separated from God², but such a simple search certainly shows that someone thinks or has been traditionally conditioned to tell us that.³

The only verse above that actually comes close to simply stating that sin has separated us from God is Isaiah 59:2. At first reading I can see this, however when you start applying textures of interpretation you see the verse differently. Basic laws of any hermeneutic design say, don’t ever make a doctrine off of one verse. In other words, if there is only one verse that seems to say something that can’t be found elsewhere in the pages of the Bible it likely doesn’t say what you mean what you think. If it did there would be supporting verses. SO then theologically you should be asking the question, if this verse seems to say this, but there isn’t another verse that says it, could there be a different meaning for this text? This kind of thinking leads to a better or more faithful interpretation and overall agreement in your theological lens. John Walton interprets Isaiah 59 as highlighting the necessity of a savior due to humanity’s iniquities and moral failures, yep, we need that!⁴ The Hebrew word used here that is interpreted as the English word “separated” is בָּדל (badal.) It is the same word used in Genesis one in the creation narrative used to describe the separation of the light, and water, day and night. Notice in these cases it isn’t a chasm that separates those things, and it is part of God’s order. In fact, the truth is that it is opposite to that way of thinking, day touches night beautifully. It is the most beautiful part of the day that we call sunrise and sunset. Where the land meets water is a beach! We all LOVE the beach. We want to dwell in beaches. We vacation on beaches. Do you see my point? To frame this word as division or a chasm that can’t be overcome isn’t Biblical. Sometimes beauty comes when the peace meets the chaos and that is often where God dwells in scripture. The Biblical picture is actually a “slice of heaven”, the most beautiful thing the world has seen. CS Lewis spent a great deal of time dwelling on this concept.⁵ Do you see what I am saying? Badal also is a form of setting something apart. You know the other Hebrew word that is used to say that? Kadosh – Holy. The context of Isaiah 59 is actually a word play in the form of a contranym. So yes, in one sense God is holy and sin is the opposite of Holiness, but God isn’t separated from us by that, He actually dwells close to it. The other problem with framing God so far away is that it is giving sin way too much power over you. I am not willing to give sin that kind of leverage or title in my life. God finds people in some of the darkest places. When you run away you think you are far from Him, but the Biblical truth is that God is right there for you. If you truly believe in the omnipresent of God than you have to take this theological perspective. To say there is a chasm between a person sinning and God doesn’t agree with the doctrine of omnipresence.

Furthermore, Isaiah 56 is a prophetic indictment to a people immersed in injustice, oppression, and violence. The “separation” here isn’t God walking away. It’s people who have closed their ears to God’s voice. It’s spiritual disconnection, not divine abandonment. There’s a difference between feeling distant from God and God actually being distant. God never leaves.⁶

Secondly, once we give our life to Jesus, sin doesn’t simply disappear. According to most plans of salvation logically that is what would make sense. If we are separated by God and we say the magic words than sin is no longer in our lives (the chasm would logically be bridged never to be empty again) but if sin truly separates, then it creates a theology that logically would mean that we would continually be in need of repetitive salvation prayers to bridge this gap over and over. We know that isn’t the case. It creates a poor theological framework. What is true is that we can make a heart and mind choice to live for Him and even though we are still in part of the earthly physical world we are free from the endearing result of sin which is death both in the physical life and eternally. That is grace. To actually believe in this great chasm, minimizes or does away with a Biblical concept of covenant grace. So, to frame sin as a separation from God logically and ontologically doesn’t make sense or follow the premise of the biblical story of God’s redemption of us. It misses the mark.

Furthermore, saying that sin has separated us from God frames the character of God in a way that doesn’t agree with the Bible. It leads us to thinks that from birth we naturally were being judged by the sin of those before us. Yet the Bible is clear that we are only responsible before the Lord for our own actions and not the actions of others. Yes, we are affected by others (perhaps even for generations) but that is slightly different. Affected and responsibility or having to earn something as a result of someone else’s past are different issues. This gets more into the original sin conversation than it does sin separation; but the two are certainly connected. If you haven’t watched or listened to the x44 series on original sin you should do that. Saying that we are always separated from God by sin assumes that when we “sin” God must turn his face or step away from us. That is not true. The overarching message of the Bible is that God does not leave us or forsake us. I wrote an article on this. Do you believe the nature of God gets angry and wrathful when you sin. Do you think God wants to smite you because you sin? That sounds monstrous doesn’t it, yet many peoples theology believes that. Yet God’s love for us couldn’t be more opposite of thinking that way. When we sin, God more than anything, grieves for us and wants to draw us closer to Him into His hand of providence. When we continue to sin God will eventually open his hand of protection and allow us to reap what we have sown. This is actually a more Biblical definition of wrath. We get what we had coming, God no longer protects. (Israel in exile is the archetypical picture of this, but God has always desired and welcomed them back with open arms, thus the prodigal son story and many more. There is no separation or barrier from God’s perspective.) When we think that God is separated from us by sin, we begin to believe that God loves us when we do good and leaves us when we don’t. Or perhaps we think that when we are in devotion to Him, He blesses us and when we are separated by sin He is done with us and can no longer use us for the kingdom. Those in the book of Job asked this question as a retribution principle and God was clear to answer at the end of the story that that is not His character. We have a series on that too. I am glad that isn’t the case. No one would have ever been used by God. Does God just leave us the second we screw up?

DOES SEPARATION OF GOD CHANGE AT THE CROSS?

This is a great question. If you are following along and thinking through the texts, you might realize that in the Old Covenant there seem to be examples of separation from God even though the text never really says it so simply. (As I previously made the point, it could be deduced from the text.) Romans 8 seems to support a notion that in the Old Covenant before the cross we were separated from God. That could be why the cloud came and went from Israel’s trail. It could also show the veil between the holy of holies and the need for a priest. But then when Christ comes as our once and for all great high priest and the veil is torn at the cross, we become the temple of the holy spirit to which the separation is broken. In this sense there MIGHT have been a separation between God and the people in the Old Testament but Jesus (not necessarily the cross itself) removed any sense of being separated. The only problem with holding a view that there was separation in the Old Testament is that the text never actually says it. If the text really intended us to take away that notion wouldn’t one of the 39 books clearly state that? Yet they don’t, it has to be deduced which then makes it a theology of humankind. That should always be problematic to your theology and possibly a dangerous place to dwell. Another great question that then follows suite would be, “Is there a separation for the unbeliever?” I don’t think so. If you take the view that in the OT there was a separation between God and humanity it would be with everyone, not just unbelievers. The cloud and the veil support that theology. If that foreshadows the NT then it would take on the same ideology. Neither believer nor unbeliever are separated then. They are all close to God, God is never far off. This may sound different than what you have always been told but there isn’t anything that would disagree with it; in fact, it takes on a far better lens of agreement within all the texts. I can’t think of one verse that would actually make this a difficult view to hold.

PERHAPS IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A SEPARATION BY SIN

Even though the Bible doesn’t seem to have the framework or state specifically that we are separated from God by sin wouldn’t that make sense. We have certainly always been told that -right? But since the Bible doesn’t say it, we would be left to deduce it. Is that faithful hermeneutics? Well, it can be, if you believe in systematic theology, you are already doing that sort of thing regularly. But Biblical theology questions those practices. In one sense it seems to follow logic that in a relationship if one side falls out of love or becomes distanced you might say they feel are even separated. We say that in broken marriages that grow apart all the time without micro analyzing it. But that doesn’t work biblically with God as one side of the relationship. We are told and shown this multiple times in the Bible. Jesus is the bride of Christ and even though the groom (sometimes viewed as Israel in the OT) was unfaithful, the bride remains completely faithful and therefore is not separated. The separation came from Israel creating a reason to be distanced but God Himself still never leaves or forsakes them in covenant love. Some would say God divorces Israel but that leaves some deep theological problems that need to be sorted if you go that way. The more accurate Biblical mosaic and unending motif of redemption is that despite the unfaithfulness of Israel God is near with open arms. To this design, even though someone distances themselves from God, (and in our human broken relationships) the same is not true of the character of God. God never distances himself from the lost, the divergent saved, the broken, the lost, or the unfaithful… God is always near (which is what the doctrine of omnipresence means, which is also a theology of humanity as long as we are making the statement.) It is important to have consistent theology. I have said many times that the reformed perspective of believing God is omnipresent and also believing that we can be separated from God doesn’t follow a logical pattern. The two views are at odds; they can’t both hold true. If you feel or sense that God is far away or you have severed your relationship, that is what you feel, but the reality and major thematic covenantal truth is that God hasn’t left you. This is true as a believer or unbeliever. God is always near; there is not a chasm between you and God.

UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLICAL TRUTH AND THE BETTER THEOLOGY

The Bible never once states that we are separated from God by sin, but it states over and over that nothing can separate us from God. And Jesus solidifies this regularly if there were any doubt.

Romans 8:38-39: “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Something tells me you have sang loud “NOTHING CAN SEPRATE US” in the Your Love Never Fails song by Chris Quilala of Jesus Culture. Remember that? We sing it so confidently but then believe sin has formed a chasm? How does that work? You can’t sing a song like this and still theologically think that way.

Some say God can’t be in the presence of Evil. That isn’t true either. God clearly sees evil. He is involved, engaged, and working redemption in real time and space. The idea that God literally can’t be near sin is a misreading of the text, and a dangerous concept or doctrine.⁷

Jesus makes all things clear

Jesus shows us that God wasn’t separated from the sinful, that His heart was moved towards a deeper connection with those in sin than perhaps anyone else. Think about the relationship that Christ had with those in sin. How can you be separated and be in deep relationship at the same time? You can’t. Those two things are opposites. Yet Jesus had deep relationships and was NOT separated by sin to those dwelling in it. He drew a line on the ground for the woman in adultery turning back those who took offense, He touched and healed the unclean before they claimed any relationship with the father. He loved them before they had any semblance of knowing Him. He routinely shared a table with sinners and invited them to be in His sacred space. In other words, he didn’t build chasms between Himself and the sinful, rather He walked hand and hand with them shepherding them to Him. He entreated those that were immersed even drowning in their sin. That doesn’t sound like a cliff of separation to me. It sounds the opposite. It sounds and looks like relational love.

“Come to me, all who are weary and burdened…” (Matt. 11:28)

And when Jesus went to the cross, He entered fully into the consequence and depth of human sin, not to separate us from God, but to reveal how far God was willing to go to stay with us.⁸

CONSIDERING SIN

This article isn’t meant to diminish sin. Sin is the opposite of God, but as I have made the case isn’t impenetrable. Sin is infectious, it hurts, it cuts, it wounds, it severs, it destroys and requires spiritual healing. Make no doubt there. Continually giving into sin is the road to death both physically in this life now and also to come in an eschatological sense (already not yet). Sin masks our identity in Christ and creates worldly thoughts of shame, pride, fear, insecurity, hurt, doubt, trauma, and so much more. Sin hurts not only you but those in relationship and covenant with you. Sin can severe your ability to walk in the spiritual prosperity that God has for you. Sin inhibits the freedom that God gives. Sin is the opposite of the peace that God manifests in us. Jesus came to take away the sin of the world. I am in no way diminishing the effects of sin on this world.

Dr. Matt and I are writing a book on this, so I am going to keep the more theological section here brief, but I also feel like it needs to be shown in this article. The effect of Jesus’s death concerning humanity’s sins in 1 John (specifically but also every other reference) is to cleanse (kathatizo), or to remove (airo) sin, not to appease or satisfy. Thus, Jesus’ death as an “atoning sacrifice” functions as an expiation of sin and not the propitiation of God. This is exactly what is happening in the Day of Atonement, and it is the image John is using in the entirety of 1 John. There is not one image of God needing to be appeased in 1 John to forgive sin or cleanse.

What does “for our sins” mean? “For” can have many meanings. But Greek is specific whereas English is not. There are 4 words with 4 distinct meanings (with some minor overlap) in Greek for “for”:

Anti: this for that (substitution or exchange)
- Eye for (anti) an eye, tooth for (anti) a tooth (Matt 5:38)
- “Do not repay anyone evil [in exchange] for (anti) evil” (Rom 12:17)

Dia: Because of or on account of; from
- one agent acting against another agent or on behalf of another

Peri: Concerning, about (sometimes overlaps with Dia)
- Conveying general information about something

Huper: in some entity’s interest: for, on behalf of, for the sake of,
- the moving cause or reason: because of, for the sake of, for.

In 1 John 4:10 and 2:2 we see peri being used for “for”, besides Mark 10:45 (anti “this for that”- substitution or exchange)⁹ all of the other New Testament uses of “died for us”, “died for me”, and “died for our sins” and its cognates are huper -about a benefit, or as the Creed above said, “on our behalf”.¹⁰ I’m not saying that Jesus did not do something in our place (although I would be careful with using the term substitution doctrinally) but he did this on our behalf- for a benefit or to rescue us (but not from the Father).

Those 3 verses (Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) are all of the references to “propitiation” in the NT. Hebrews 2:17 also uses a variation of this word and in context is about what the high priest does with the purification offering on the Day of Atonement. We’ve seen that all these mean expiations or show Jesus as the “mercy seat” when interpreted in the proper context of the Day of Atonement.

We do not see that the scapegoat or the purification offering had to be killed to propitiate God’s wrath. To interpret these in this way is going beyond the text and meaning of the Day of Atonement shadow. In other word’s framing the text that was is reading into it, it isn’t a faithful hermeneutic. The primary question about the Day of Atonement goats is whether God is being acted upon (changed?) or is sin being acted upon. As we saw with expiation, sin is the force being acted upon. But with propitiation, God is being acted upon. Yet, the noun’s use in the New Testament is about Jesus being the place where we connect with God because of his High Priestly and expiating function. This makes sense of Paul’s most popular phrase for salvation: “In Him”- Jesus is where (the place- Mercy Seat) we meet with God.

There are plenty of other corresponding verses that all agree with this methodology such as Leviticus 16; Romans 3:21-26, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10; Heb 13:11-12; Matt 27:28-31; Heb 9:14-28; Heb 10:8-17; 1 John 3:5-8; John 1:29; Col 2:14; 2 Cor 5:21.

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOU?

If you believe sin separates you from God, then every time you fall short or miss the mark, you’ll think or believe that God’s love has left or betrayed you or has turned His face from you. That is such a poor image of God’s character and against everything the Bible says about His great redemption story. It is counter to almost every thematic motif in the Bible. Have you been harboring the lie that keeps you from experiencing what God wants most for you? Are you wallowing in your mess because you haven’t claimed redemption? God is always with you.

God’s grace for your sin is stronger than your worst nightmare or anything the world can dish out.

CONCLUSION¹¹

Jesus didn’t come to make God love us.
He came to show us that God already did.

Sin is real. It has consequences. It can numb us, isolate us, distort our vision.
But it can’t separate us from God.

The cross is not a bridge to a distant God.
It’s the place where God meets us in the depths of our brokenness
And says, “I’m not going anywhere.”

Jesus is not your lifeline back to God.
Jesus is God – reaching, rescuing, embracing.
Always has been.
Always will be.

https://www.gotquestions.org/plan-of-salvation.html ↩︎
https://bible.org/article/gods-plan-salvation ↩︎
https://www.openbible.info/topics/sin_separates_us_from_god ↩︎
https://bible.ca/ef/expository-isaiah-59.htm ↩︎
Carpenter, Humphrey (2006) [1978]. The Inklings of Oxford: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Their Friends. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-774869-3. ↩︎
https://pauldazet.substack.com/p/sin-doesnt-separate-us-from-god ↩︎
IBID ↩︎
IBID ↩︎
In the image of the Exodus there was actually no substitution or exchange but that Jesus’ life was costly and his death and blood saves us from Death. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSqtE13v5k for a full word study on “For us” and all its uses in the NT. ↩︎
Some of the most prominent sacrificial “For Us” verses in the NT that use huper (not anti): Rom 5:6-8; 1 Cor 15:3-5; 2 Cor 15:14-15; Gal 1:3-4; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:1-2; 1 Thes 5: 9-10; Titus 2:11-14; Heb 2:9-11. ↩︎
IBID ↩︎

The power play of Calvinism is opposite to the under play of Jesus at the cross.

Posted by expedition44 on April 21, 2025

Every year at Easter I practically have an aneurism from all the poor (or I should say Calvinistic) theology from the pulpit and social media. So much of what is shared and taught from mainstream Christians is Calvinistic Reformed Theology, but usually the person sharing has no idea, and most of them don’t realize just how reformed their language is. A friend posted this image over Easter, and it got me thinking about it. I agree with him that Calvinism is based on ideas that seem opposite to the humility of Jesus to the cross. For instance, as he points out, Calvinism sees sovereignty through or by control, victory needing irresistibility, and salvation as something predetermined and unilateral.

Here are some things that show Christ’s atoning work through the death, resurrection, and ascension as being very opposite of Calvinistic rhetoric, both TULIP and PSA (or ransom theories.)

Jesus emphasized victory through turning the other cheek or extreme surrender, this is referred to theologically as displaying “power under.” Calvinism is prefaced on the idea that God’s power is best shown through assertive dominance and total “power over.” Jesus’ life shows humility revealing that God doesn’t need to coerce to reign.

The very heart of Calvinism and its so-called “glory of God” is often defined by control, while the cross redefines glory as self-emptying love.

Jesus’ life through death shows that the cross was about love, restoration, and healing through self-sacrificial grace. Calvinism displays the cross as a legal hostage exchange but somehow Jesus gets away without actually paying anything and not having to serve any penal sentence. Calvinism frames this as if Jesus gives his life but then He somehow gets it back. They say it is such a great exchange but is really? 1 life for all of humanity? Wouldn’t anyone make that exchange if it were true. I think it greatly devalues what Jesus does through the cross. That sort of sounds like what we define as the world’s sense of trickery or thievery not honest sacrificial grace. This kind of purchase sounds more like a back-alley exchange than a picture of truth and unfailing love. Calvinism robs the beauty of Jesus’ mission.
Calvinism frames God as planning from the beginning of time to sacrifice Jesus as a debt to be paid. Jesus (who I will remind you is God in the Trinity) asks his father if there is any other way. This shows God uses what the world did to Jesus for unthinkable victory, He didn’t orchestrate it. To this note, some would say that Calvinism frames God as a “cosmic child abuser.”

From the beginning pages of the Bible God’s nature is described by His own decree as “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love [hesed] and faithful” Yet through the cross, Calvinism defines God by pouring out His wrath on His son, turning His face on Jesus as the cross, and the need to make a deal with the Devil. These seem at odds.

Calvinism communicates that Jesus was stricken by God at the cross and that God left Jesus at the cross turning His back on Him, a better theology shows God in perfect unity with the son as 2 Cor 5:19 assures us that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. God was pleased to heal Him. By Healing His son, raising Him from the dead He accomplishes something great, He heals the nations.

Jesus is enthroned by humility and exhibits His power under; Calvinism is defined by coercion and control over.

Calvinism presses down to restrict, dominate, control, and subdue, while Jesus shows us how to humbly serve -even to death. Calvinism demeans, Jesus empowers; Calvinism controls, Jesus frees; Calvinism functions in superiority, Jesus functions in humility. The heart of Calvinism is rooted in pride exerting power over, but the heart of Christ exerts humility and calls for power under.

THE NEW YEAR & JEWISH ROOTS

Posted by expedition44 on December 30, 2024

A HISTORY LESSON:

The Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) in 2025 will begin on October 2 and end on October 4. The American New Year (New Year’s Day) in 2025 will fall on January 1.

Rosh Hashanah (Hebrew: רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה‎, Rōʾš hašŠānā, lit. ’head of the year’) is the “observed” New Year in Judaism, (although as I will get to, it is more complicated than that). The biblical name for this holiday is Yom Teruah (יוֹם תְּרוּעָה‎, Yōm Tərūʿā, lit. ’day of shouting/blasting’). It is the first of the High Holy Days (יָמִים נוֹרָאִים‎, Yāmīm Nōrāʾīm, ‘Days of Awe”), as specified by Leviticus 23:23–25. Current tradition has Rosh Hashanah beginning ten days of penitence culminating in Yom Kippur, as well as beginning the cycle of autumnal religious festivals running through Sukkot.

Rosh is the Hebrew word for “head”, ha is the definite article (“the”), and shana means year. Thus Rosh Hashanah means “head of the year”, referring to the day of the New Year. But Rosh Hashanah itself can’t really be found in the Biblical text itself.

Abandoned old spooky church in Vergalijo (Navarre, Spain)

In ancient times, there were four different New Years on the Jewish calendar. Each had a distinct significance:

The first of the Hebrew month of Nisan, the New Year of Kings, was the date used to calculate the number of years a given king had reigned.
The first of the Hebrew month of Elul was the new year for tithing of cattle, a time when one of every 10 cattle was marked and offered as a sacrifice to God.
The first of the Hebrew month of Tishrei was the agricultural new year, or the New Year of the Years.
The 15th of the Hebrew month of Sh’vat, known as Tu BiShvat, was the New Year of the Trees.

Although the Torah refers to Nisan as the first month of the Jewish year, the first day of the month of Tishrei emerged as what we now know as Rosh HaShanah. This is an example of something that isn’t really Biblical but became the norm for some reason.

So, as you will see the celebrated New Year wasn’t really as biblical as it became traditional. (Remember the fiddler on the roof “TRADITION!!!”)

This started when the Babylonians, among whom the Jews lived under the captivity that began the diaspora which then some jews associated as a “Day of Judgment” each year to which the Babylonians believed the “gods” assembled in the temple of Marduk to inscribe the destiny of every person. Well, what is a bit crazy is that the Jews adopted these ideas and borrowed the elements to shape their New year, Rosh HaShanah believing that Yahweh also acted in the same way choosing the good and wicked (yes making God the author of evil); and that for 10 “in between” days you could repent before the book of life was sealed for the new year. Eventually this is going to become the reformed view of God actually ordaining the lives of those who would win the cosmic lottery in a sense of being “chosen” or predestined and laced to a lot of PSA beliefs. (We would see predestination as God simply seeing ahead of time the consequences of free will choices but would agree it is also more complicated than that.) Does it sound messed up, rather un-Biblical? Yea it is! Even though according to the Torah it was NOT the beginning of the year, it officially became the Jewish New Year because of this traditional thought as well as other thoughts such as believing that the world was created on this day (also not of biblical origin.) In the second century the Mishnah basically made this official. It was actually a very visible picture of 2nd temple Judaism walking farther away from the scripture and God than being rooted in Him.

Getting back to the Biblical text…

On exactly the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall humble your souls and present an offering by fire to the Lord. You shall not do any work on this same day, for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement on your behalf before the Lord your God. Leviticus 23:27-28 NASB

So the original intent of the New Year was that it would be a day to humble our souls. Imagine that. Humility is a forgotten word in both Hebrew and American culture.

But when the rest of America celebrates the New Year it isn’t a biblical date either! But we can still own this sort of thinking for Jesus. For example, by many reasons, traditionally Yom Kippur is the most solemn day of the year. It is a day of fasting, repentance, self-reflection, and a return to holy thinking. Those are GREAT things we should want!

The root word used in Leviticus is kāpar which has a glossed (regularly known as or thought of but not necessarily correct) meaning of “to cover,” or “conceal” which is also tied to reformed theology. Some have (IMHO) wrongly asserted that the word then would mean to “cover sin” as such to pacify the wrath of the deity in this case Yahweh by making atonement such as I explained the Babylonians believed about the gods and the temple of Marduk. It is suggested then that sin was covered until Christ could rightly atone. Sounds good, and likely what you might have heard at church, but more traditionally based on the gods of the exile than biblically accurate. There is very little evidence for this view. As many scholars have pointed out, the connection is at best weak as the Hebrew root is not used to mean “cover.” To say it correctly, the Hebrew verb is never used in the simple or Qal stem, but only in the derived intensive stems. These intensive stems often indicate not emphasis, but merely that the verb is derived from a noun whose meaning is more basic to the root idea.^[1]

Ok so what does that mean or what is a better view? (Kippūr) is the word for Atonement that is also used today in the name of the Jewish holiday yom kippur “day of atonement” (also associated with a Biblical new year) which was the tenth day of the seventh month, Tishri. This solemn day was the only day of fasting prescribed for Israel. It was celebrated by a special sin offering for the whole nation. On that day only would the high priest enter within the inner veil bearing the blood of the sin offering (cf. Heb 9:7). A second goat was released as an escape goat to symbolize the total removal of sin.^[2]

Jewish tradition ultimately adopted here a synthesis (not always elegant) of the two views. Throughout the Day of Atonement, the liturgy bemoans the burden of sin we labor under, and our inadequacy to measure up in God’s sight. But at the end of the day, in the Ne’ilah (Closing ) Prayer, the burden of sin is gone; the Jew is confident of having achieved forgiveness, by a combination of human repentance and divine mercy, and proceeds forward refreshed, optimistic about our power to do good in the world under God’s guidance.”[3] In other words, despite some terrible history, the final idea of the Hebraic New Year comes back to be pretty Biblical. God has always forgiven. (We actually didn’t need Jesus on the cross for that part contrary to many people’s opinions, but the cross accomplished a slew of other things we did need. God has always offered complete forgiveness.)

The New Year is about a return to what is of God – TOV.

Most of you know that X44 has done a good bit of research in this area. Here is a link to our video series on atonement:

If you want to read a better version I would suggest this:

Better views of atonement:

Well first let’s get the word right.

Leviticus 16 – gives us the instructions for the day of Atonement. Notice in Lev 16:2 is the noun for atonement (a place not an action).

Aaron must make a burnt offering (the gift) and a sin (purification or decontamination) offering before entering the Holy place. So, there is a gift to God to say, “Hey I want to spend some time in your presence” and a purification offering. There is no wrath debt or substitution to be seen here.

2 goats are selected for Israel: The sin offering goat and the goat that will “bear the sin”. Lots are cast to see which goat fulfills which role.

The “Sin” offering goat

Both goats are called a sin/purification/decontamination offering and the reason is that is that the lots have not been cast yet over these two. So, since we don’t know yet which ones going to be the actual sin offering, they’re both referred to that way. We don’t know which one’s going to be for the Lord, which one was to be for azazel.
a better way to translate “Atonement” here is to make expiation with it, or to make a purging with it. The whole notion of the sin offering is decontamination and purification. It is a reset back to holiness. (starting to see new year implications yet?)

Propitiation or Expiation (KPR language)

Both words presuppose that there is a barrier that must be removed to overcome sin. We need to look to see what is acted upon in order to translate KPR correctly. As we noted atonement language means to cover or purge but is the issue with humans, God, or sin?

Propitiation: means that the barrier lies within God himself; thus, it is usually interpreted as an action to satisfy divine wrath against sinners. This was the pagan concept of sacrifice, but Christians who hold to this say that God’s justice must be exercised, and sin must be paid for in order to receive forgiveness and the aversion of God’s wrath. (This is PSA language)
Expiation: means that the barrier lies outside of God, within humankind and/or a stain they leave on the world (sacred space), it is often interpreted as an action aimed at removing sin. To cover, wipe, or to purge sin.
Mercy Seat Translation-This is a common translation, reading the ESV, this is not a good translation although it’s a traditional one. More literally, if atonement (kapper) means to purge then kapporeth (noun) should be the place of purging. In other words, we would really focus on the location not the result, because calling it the mercy seat is sort of reading the theological result into the lemma. That’s why it’s not a great translation. The place is the cover of the Ark in the Holy of Holies which is the footstool of God’s throne. This is a throne room scene.

The Scapegoat or the goat for azazel

The propitiation view (punishment). The goat bears the sin and wrath.
The azazel refers to the location (the desert) which theologically if the place where sin and evil lives or belongs (not in God’s camp)
Azazel is a proper name. This was the leader of the fallen angels/demons in 2nd temple Judaism. The goat transports the sin to Azazel.

Because the goat was bearing the sin (carrying) it could not be a sacrifice because God only gets spotless pure animals (what does that do for your New Testament theology of the cross if Jesus was imputed our sin?)
One more issue here is the laying on of hands and confessing Israel’s sins over the goat. Some argue that this is the connection that all laying on of hands must equal that the animal is bearing sins and the laying on of hands is the transfer. In this instance this is true. But as we saw in every instance of hand laying it is not about sin, so we cannot jump to conclusions when we deal with other sacrifices that as we saw don’t deal with that concept. Laying on of hands is about setting something apart or consecrating it for a task.

Atonement Conclusions

Goat 1- the purification offering, is to cleanse the temple objects. Blood is not applied to anyone.
The scapegoat is sent to Azazel. So, sin, the forces of death, are removed from the camp. This connects God is rescuing his people from the forces of death.
Neither of these goats are punished. It’s about expelling or purging God’s space (so Expiation!). The first goat (the one that dies) is more about cleaning the throne room of the stain of sin. The scapegoat doesn’t get killed (he’ll probably die in the desert).
This is all about resetting sacred space (getting back to Eden)

New Testament

The Exodus is the primary motif of what is going on at the cross, but the Biblical authors do see the day of atonement being fulfilled in Jesus. We see Jesus as all 3 actors in the Day of Atonement: The purification offering goat, the scapegoat, and the priest.

1 John 3:8- Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil. Both Exodus and Day of Atonement deal with this concept.

Romans 3:21-26, 1 John 2:1-2, 1 John 4:10, Heb 13:11-12, Matt 27:28-31, Heb 9:18-26, Heb 10:8-17

Addressing PSA notions of the Day of Atonement:
- Neither goat is taking the place of anyone
- Neither goat is getting wrath poured out upon them
- The goat doesn’t make a payment for forgiveness but is the one who carries it away. Remission.
- Expiation (defined as purging) is the action taken- like the goat taking the sins back to where they belong. Not only does he take it back to where it belongs, he defeats it for good!
- Sin is seen as the forces of death and they have no place in sacred space, Jesus removes them by his blood and carries them out of the camp. Dissolves them- His blood is the ultimate ritual detergent.
- Jesus is the place where heaven and earth meet (the “mercy seat”) he’s not the propitiation to satisfy God’s wrath. This is a rescue of humanity and the world from the powers

The Day of Atonement was all about resetting holiness in sacred space and not about appeasing God’s wrath. It was about purging the sin from God’s presence

CONCLUSION:

Whatever date we want to associate as the New year, the idea biblically has always centered around a return to TOV – the way that God intended. Jesus shows us the way back after much brokenness to what God asks of us. To be TOV. To reflect on how to live in Holiness, Devotion, and Tribulation. How to Live in the Joy that we were created for. To bring Heaven to earth. To Celebrate Life here and now in the name of Jesus. To return to what is Holy and who we were made to be – a Set Apart Holy Royal Priesthood.

^[1] Harris, R. L. (1999). 1023 כָפַר. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., pp. 452–453). Chicago: Moody Press.

^[2] Ibid.

[3] Gordon Tucker, in Abraham Heschel, Heavenly Torah as Refracted through the Generations (ed. and trans. by Gordon Tucker, Continuum International Publishing Group, New York, 2007), p. 169.

What did Adam and Eve’s Sin actually do to you? Reformed roots-

Posted by expedition44 on September 25, 2024

If you grew up in modern evangelical circles, I am sure you were raised in church hearing something like,

Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, you and I now live personally separated from the tree of life and from the presence of God. The whole human race at that moment was flung into the downward spiral of the curse of man and God’s wrath, the weight of their sin and God’s judgement fell on them and therefore continues to fall on us as if we also made the cognitive choice that Adam and Eve made.

Many x44 people have gone through a bit of an exegetical deconstruction of what they have always been told that the Bible says finding out that what they have traditionally been fed and believed likely isn’t the nature of God or what the Bible actually says. Renovation is needed and usually bears fruit and opens the thresholds towards devotion to the Lord. As I agree with a good part of the statements above, I believe such similar statements to be misleading and stunt a person’s road to sanctification. First much of this way of thinking is tied to the pillars of Calvinism. I will mostly quote from R.C. Sproul who is commonly known as the best Theologian to hold to and explain Reformed theology and Calvinism. To be clear I have read every article and book I source completely. My library has as many books defending Calvinism (and likely more), than I own from the free will camps. Before Sproul passed, I knew him personally and greatly respected him and agreed theologically with him in some capacities (such as partial preterism) but unfortunately feel that he was way off on becoming the popular spokesperson for Calvinism. This article is intended to be a “quicker” read, if you are interested in diving into this conversation, I would suggest the X44 Original Sin series here.

To be clear, thinking that every person is somehow under spell handed down to them generation after generation by reformed circles camps own definition is called Total depravity (also called radical corruption and is foundationally tied to the concept of original sin)^[1] and asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God, but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to trust God for their salvation and be saved (the term “total” in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as they could be).^[2] This doctrine is derived from Calvin’s interpretation of Augustine’s explanation about Original Sin.^[3] The singular scripture that is used for this is:

“Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).

We also have an entire x44 series on Atonement and get into regularly why the way the reformed camps use this verse singularly (along with a few others) is neither exegetical nor follows the laws of hermeneutics. Notice that it was death that passed (separated now from the sustaining Tree of Life) or came upon all, not Adam’s personal disobedience. But to remind you of a few basics, Romans 5 needs to be read in context, not simply plucking one verse out to make a doctrine out of it. Scripture seems to teach that sin itself is not inherited (although the consequences for Israel often stretched to 4 generations): “[T]he son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Eze. 18:20). Everyone is responsible for their own conduct (Rom. 14:12). Sinfulness often begins in one’s youth (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:25). Children must reach a level of maturity before they are able to choose good and evil (Isa. 7:15, 16). Little children are held up as models for those who seek the kingdom (Matt. 18:3; 19:14). The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; it is given by God (Ecc. 12:7; Heb. 12:9).

In our YouTube video ORIGINAL SIN series we addressed how Original Sin (the pre-cursor to Calvinistic doctrines) is not Biblical or Ancient.

The first 400 years of the Church did not believe this.
There is zero evidence that Judaism ever believed this. Modern Messianic Jews do not believe this.
Augustine was the inventor of this doctrine in the 5^th century and much of it was due to his importation of his pagan background into Christianity and lack of the knowledge of the Greek language.

NONE OF THESE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AFFIRMED THIS: Clement, the Didache, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, or Justin Martyr

The doctrine came into the church through Augustine of Hippo (396-440 CE) and the doctrine was originally called Concupiscence. Augustine could only read Latin, not Greek, or Hebrew. Augustine came to original sin by reading Romans 5:12 in a bad Latin translation. The original Greek would read: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” Yet his Latin translation said, “all have sinned in Him (Adam)”. Where the Greek says that death has spread to all because all (each) have sinned.

Concupiscence

Concupiscence, according to Augustine, relates to Adam’s sin being transferred through sexual reproduction.
Its root definition is a base sexual desire. We get our word concubine from this.
He believed that through this all men are born with their will, body, and mind corrupt, and this is transmitted sexually. They inherited the sin through the sexual act leading to birth.
He taught that Jesus had to be born of a virgin because he connected this to the sexual act. Therefore, the virgin birth spared Jesus from a sinful nature.
- I affirm the virgin birth but Isaiah said this is a “SIGN” and has nothing to do with original sin.
- God’s first command to humans to be fruitful and multiply. If sex is in itself a sinful act as reformed theology says than God would be commanding humans to sin.

We also get the doctrine of infant depravity from this, and Pastors today even keep this bad doctrine going:
- John MacArthur said, “At no point is a man’s depravity more manifest than in the procreative act…by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked.”
- Augustine of Hippo said, “The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their frames; the minds of infants are far from innocent.”

One issue with teaching that sin is inherited is that it means God is then judging you for someone else’s action. That obviously isn’t scriptural. Thinking this way holds you back. In Christ we have life -not death. Once we accept this life here and now and eschatologically to come, we are called and charged to live in holiness separated from any ties of sin. That is what it means to live a life in Sanctification.

FROM HERE I WANT TO SHOW THE PROGRESSION INTO 5PT CALVINISM, but if you already know that, skip down to the next similar starred divider to continue reading:

The next problem with thinking we are bound to the sin ascribed to us that it would mean that we are also then unconditionally elected (also called sovereign election)^[4] which asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. Some may argue the connection, but if you believe you came into this world already doomed by someone that came before you then you believe at least some part of the decision has been made for you. I do believe in the corruption of the fallen world, but we are called to be delivered and live in freedom. The effects of the death that came in through Adam are not or do not have to be continual towards you. You are only responsible for your choices in terms of life with Jesus. With this you also venture into a very similar doctrine called limited atonement (also called definite atonement)^[5] asserts that Jesus’s substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus’s death. This is cosmic lottery language. I can’t find anything in the Bible that goes this way and neither could the early church. These are all modern “inventions” that came from the Reformation.

Thinking this way is also tied to the idea of irresistible grace (also called effectual grace)^[6] which asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. Essentially this believes that God created robots and determined their ways before time. It completely discounts the many passages that clearly teach free will. It leaves reformed theologians having to do all kinds of theological gymnastics with verses about free will.

Finally thinking that you are responsible for the sins of the ones that came before you is also ties to a Calvinist doctrine called the perseverance of the saints (also called preservation of the saints;^[7] the “saints” being those whom God has predestined to salvation) asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with (1 John 2:19), or, if they are saved but not presently walking in the Spirit, they will be divinely chastened (Hebrews 12:5–11) and will repent (1 John 3:6–9).^[8] Most people refer to this as once saved always saved. But in this case, if you believe that sins were tied to you at birth, your theology if it is consistent would also then get to the place of believing that everything was set before you and if that is the case, to be consistent if you were intended by a sovereign God to be saved then how could you lose that? The problem again goes back to the fact that the Bible continually teaches that we are responsible for the decisions we make and even though when we make and allegiant confession our past is made clean, we continue to be held responsible by a just God for decisions thereafter. You can’t make a onetime proclamation and go on living in sin and expect to be saved. The proclamation of life in Christ is ongoing. Ot is a journey, an expedition. This is why I have said many times, if you are going to take on any form of reformed theology it should be one or all of them. Perhaps the worst theology is those that try to adhere to a few points of Calvinism but not all of them.

Here is a better way of thinking about original sin rather than falling into Calvinist doctrines such as the above… (these are borrowed and slightly reworded from my good friend Greg Boyd at reknew.org.

1) I do think it is theoretically possible for an individual to live a sinless life, you do too if you truly believe in the complete humanity of Jesus! Yet, this isn’t inconsistent with admitting that everyone will inevitably sin. Think of it like this. Every car crash (let us assume) is preventable, if only drivers were more careful. Hence, it is theoretically possible that there will be no car crashes anywhere on the earth today — or this month — or this year — or ever. But it is certain there will be car crashes, for which drivers are responsible. The thing is, statistical certainty doesn’t negate individual responsibility. We are responsible for every sin we commit, -we didn’t need to do it. We could have done otherwise. It’s theoretically possible to go the rest of our lives without sinning. Yet, it’s certain that, over our lifetime of decisions, we will sin. I believe most evangelical American Christians are far from this, but we don’t have to be. The worldly entanglement has led way to daily sins. But I do believe we were called and created and expected to do better before the Lord.

2) I see “original sin” as mostly being born into a screwed-up world that is oppressed with fallen powers. This doesn’t make us sin nor are we responsible for the sins before us that contributed to it. Yet, it does render it certain that we will eventually sin (see above). This is, in part, why we need a savior. To be clear one we are dead to our old selves we should not continue to live in sin or the slavery of the world. Paul makes this exceedingly clear.

3) Finally, it is important that we not think about this only in individualistic terms. From a biblical perspective (and now, with much confirmation from science), the human community is, in a sense, one person, extending back to Adam. We were made to live, disciple, and be discipled in the community of those that walk with Jesus. We influence each other, and are responsible, in varying degrees, for one another. So we have collectively gotten ourselves into a situation where we can’t avoid sin, and the responsibility is shared by all of us. This is what Paul means when he says we were in Adam. Yet, we are now placed in Christ — all of us (I Cor. 15:22; Rom 5:14-20). It’s just that we all (including believers) tend to see ourselves and our world as though we were yet in Adam. Transitioning from Adam-thought to Christ-thought is what discipleship is all about. One of my biggest grumbles with evangelical modern church is we don’t disciple to live devotionally to the LORD in communion with the perseverance of the saints.

Getting back to where we started, Adam and Eve’s sin separated them from the life that the tree gave but it didn’t necessarily separate them from God. I have an article on this here.

That is the continual message of God to His people. He still desires to walk with them. God does not remain separated from us, He is always with us, we are promised that time and time again. We may receive a fresh anointing (and that may be up to your theology here); but make no mistake, He never leaves us.

We don’t have to live in depravity or a downward spiral. That is another huge theme of the Bible! God has more for you! Claim him, get into the word, be surrounded with the community of saints, and live and walk with Him every hour of every day! Refuse the world and all that it offers. You were purposed for more! Don’t let Satan sell yourself short! Claim victory and live in perseverance walking with the LORD and those that walk with Him. Seek discipleship and disciple! Live out your kingdom destiny!

God’s wrath in scripture is the handing over of his unrepentant sinful people to what they have coming or what they have earned. It is removing the providential hand from their lives. The weight of your sin and consequences of your decisions are real but you don’t need to and shouldn’t dwell there! Don’t dwell in your sin. Get redeemed! God offers you healing and freedom here and now! Step into it, believe it and live it. You are no longer to be bound to your flesh or former ways of the world. Step into it and live it!

let me articulate a better view:

The sin of Adam and Eve separated humanity from the tree of life but God is still offering the relationship that He had with them in Eden and actually desires a better way, not to just occasionally walk with you as He did with Adam and Eve in Eden, but through Jesus now offers even more, He wants to never leave you, to continually reside in your heart as you become His temple being the very physical manifestation of the presence of God to those you interact with. Yes, the world has been taken over by evil, but you represent light and have the power to make the presence that you fill sacred to make what is broken healed. You are the source of God to renew the Earth. You no longer live under a curse, but the power of the LORD is in you. Choose this day to no longer live in sin and dwell richly in the presence of the LORD. 1 Jn 3:6-9, 1 Jn 5:18, Rom 8:11, Gal 2:20, Col 1:27, I Peter 2:8-9, Eph 3:17, 2 Thess 1:10, 2 Cor 5:17, and so many more passages make all of these things abundantly clear.

Sproul, R. C. (March 25, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Total Depravity”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I like to replace the term total depravity with my favorite designation, which is radical corruption. Ironically, the word radical has its roots in the Latin word for “root,” which is radix, and it can be translated root or core.
^ Steele, David; Thomas, Curtis (1963). The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, Documented. P&R. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-87552-444-3. The adjective ‘total’ does not mean that each sinner is as totally or completely corrupt in his actions and thoughts as it is possible for him to be. Instead, the word ‘total’ is used to indicate that the “whole” of man’s being has been affected by sin.
^ Livingstone, Elizabeth A. (2005). “Original sin”. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.
Sproul, R. C. (April 1, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Unconditional Election”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. Unconditional election is another term that I think can be a bit misleading, so I prefer to use the term sovereign election.
Sproul, R. C. (April 8, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Limited Atonement”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I prefer not to use the term limited atonement because it is misleading. I rather speak of definite redemption or definite atonement, which communicates that God the Father designed the work of redemption specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect, and that Christ died for His sheep and laid down His life for those the Father had given to Him.
Sproul, R. C. (April 15, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Irresistible Grace”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I have a little bit of a problem using the term irresistible grace, not because I don’t believe this classical doctrine, but because it is misleading to many people. Therefore, I prefer the term effectual grace, because the irresistible grace of God effects what God intends it to effect.
Sproul, R. C. (April 22, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Perseverance of the Saints”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I think this little catchphrase, perseverance of the saints, is dangerously misleading. It suggests that the perseverance is something that we do, perhaps in and of ourselves. … So I prefer the term the preservation of the saints, because the process by which we are kept in a state of grace is something that is accomplished by God.
^ Boettner, Loraine. “The Perseverance of the Saints”. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.

The ongoing results of the fall of the Spiritual beings

Posted by expedition44 on September 4, 2024

When we speak from a Deuteronomy 32 worldview it means that we believe some of those originally created by the hand of God (Spiritual beings – angels – demons – and the first humanity) decided to mirror (image, imagine, worship) themselves rather than God. In doing so, the biblical word that best describes what happens to them and the world is the term fall (or falling away). Here is the prime example of that process as Isaiah references the specific fall of the one we often incorrectly refer to as ‘Lucifer’ [1], the archetype of all the fallen beings (later referred to as Satan in the New Testament.)

This article is a 15 minute read.

Isaiah 14

12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O destroyer of nations. 13 You said in your heart: “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God. I will sit on the mount of assembly, in the far reaches of the north. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”

Please take note that one of the compelling reasons or causes of this annotated fall was the desire to ‘make myself like the Most High.” If you have heard good messaging from an authentic spiritual leader, then this is exactly what we have all been taught to do. We should passionately crave to be ‘Image Bearers, Imagers’ (Gen 2) and ‘Imitators’ (mimétés in Greek, which is the root of our English word ‘mimic’ in Eph 5:1). So why was this so devastating for Lucifer, and by repercussion, all of humanity yet unborn?

For the cause of brevity, and to give the answer in simplicity… Lucifer did it the wrong way.

Desiring to be ‘like’ God is a Godly (God-like) goal that we are asked repeatedly to embrace. BUT… doing it by His grace and under the leading of His Spirit is a necessary component of the calling. What Satan, the other fallen spiritual beings, and ultimately Adam & Eve did that precipitated their ‘falling away’ was that they all pursued their objective from pride, self-will, and an arrogant belief that they could ascend to that place WITHOUT the Father’s tutelage. Does this not sound familiar to today’s humanistic messaging where everyone is ‘awesome’ and can do/be anything they want with enough self-confidence, self-belief, or self-motivation? (It is also what happens at Babel at a later “fall.”)

The goal of our faith is allowing God’s grace to transform you into the image of God… Good (TOV) and Godly! The opposite (or complete rival) to this dynamic is to desire to promote yourself instead of God. This is the definition of falling away (which some call apostacy.) Trying to conform God into your image version and then working with your own strength towards it is called Idolatry.

Most people are familiar with the term fall to describe the garden serpent tempting Eve and the banishment from Eden, but that isn’t the only fall, it was simply the first fall that was characterized as self-promotion in place of Godly worship (as I believe we are reading the narrative of a dual fall – not simply humankind falling but also the serpent figure likely being the first of the angelic beings that falls or is falling at the same time.) From there, “falling away” becomes a central theme to the entire narrative of the scripture describing the cosmic battle for humankind for either good (TOV) or evil (RA); which is defined by those that are rescued and come to saving faith and those that choose of their own will to remain in the fallen world attempting to elevate themselves.

The Flood and Babel will immediately be pictures of the perpetual falling away and give specific descriptions of how humanity will be deceived, enslaved, and perhaps destroyed resulting in the consequences of their self-will influenced by giving into the desires of the world and all that dwell within that kingdom (RA). This theme continues with the falling away of Israel (representing the remnant people of God, the Ekklesia of the Old Covenant), and even religion itself by the time of Jesus being described as having become less like the ways of Yahweh instead of more like Him. The religious leaders of the day were the rivals of God’s son Jesus. When Jesus comes and gives revelation to a “new Covenant” through His Kingdom Gospel we are given the power to overcome and triumph over the world and its fallen powers (principalities, rulers, authorities, enslavements). The power to do so comes through His death, resurrection, and ascension as He claims the heavenly throne, regains the keys to life, and sends His Spirit to walk with everyone who allegiantly follows His ways. Returning to this walk is a return to what was established in Eden and will be eschatologically reconciled as “complete” through Jesus in a recreated heaven and earth. In His kingdom, the way to achieve Godliness is through submission, humility, and faithful loyalty.

In the New Testament narrative outlined by the Epistles, we are told the spiritual beings have been bound but are still present and perhaps are still even falling until the last days of the second coming of Christ. In Revelation 12 we get an implication that 1/3 of the spiritual beings will fall and some consider that to have been a statement taking place from the garden to the tower of Babel; but the context is the incarnation which imply that spiritual beings may continue to be falling away. [2] This would explain certain language: (In fact I usually tell people that are new to a Deuteronomy 32 view, that once you understand the text this way, many of the scriptures that didn’t make sense to you now have clarity.)

Bottomless pit – Ps 140:10, Lk 8:31, Rev 9:1, 2, 11, 11:7, 17:8, 20:1, 3
Proverbs 27:20 “Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.
Proverbs 30:15-16 “The leech has two daughters: Give and Give. There are three things that are never satisfied, four that never say, ‘Enough!’: Sheol, the barren womb, land never satisfied with water, and fire that never says, ‘Enough!’

As a result of these falls, even though believers know (theologically and eschatologically) they are victorious over the fallen, there is an ongoing struggle (battle) over them in the real-life application. This struggle is characterized by rejecting or ignoring the authority of God in their lives. The result of removing the fear of God is arrogance and pride that leads to the desolation of the world and most things in it. When Jesus came and offered victory, I believe it was to once and for all gain victory over the continual falls and reverse the trajectory for His remnant people; yet 2000 years later we seem to be just as “fallen” or rejecting of God’s ways as those that didn’t have the WORD and the SPIRIT to guide them.

Has Evil won? Absolutely not.

Romans 6:1-4

What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase? Certainly not! How can we who died to sin live in it any longer? Or aren’t you aware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may walk in newness of life.

The world will be renewed, and we are the manifestation of Jesus physically to bring that transformation to the broken fallen world. Even though we live victorious as believers we still contend with the powers of darkness in a real and everyday manner.

Romans 8:20-21

For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Inner spiritual awareness is the true character of a sincere relationship with God and therefore assumes certain epistemological [3] conditions.

THE POWER OF DECEPTION

1. Humankind is generally and deliberately unaware of the giant chasm created by their ongoing sins because the church, and culture as a whole, have been deceived by the fallen powers and principalities and/or the evil one and the world.

1 John 2:15-16 “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life— is not from the Father but from the world.”

2. The great majority of the church has been deceived to believe misguided theology such as but not limited to “Jesus paid the entry fee for Heaven” and perhaps “some won the cosmic lottery, and some didn’t” -that their lives “Here and Now” in Jesus aren’t as important as their escapist theories of Heaven.

Hebrews 10:36-39 “You need to persevere, so that after you have done the will of God, you will receive what He has promised. But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

3. We no longer believe that God will hold us accountable for the small things, the everyday falling away of life. This brings on a domino effect that continues to separate us further from the will from God.

Galatians 6:7-8 “Do not be deceived: God is not to be mocked. Whatever a man sows, he will reap in return. The one who sows to please his flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; but the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”

4. The world deceives us – this is the job of the yetzer ha’ra. Self-deception holds us captive to a theology of feelings rather than a standard of holiness.

James 1:22 “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves.”

5. The measure of true spirituality has become my inward feelings, not my outward actions. Shepherding of the 1-3-12-70 along with intimate discipleship to completely leave the world at the beach and walk wholly in the LORD has been completely rejected by the modern evangelical church. In other word, Jesus’ primary message and commission is no longer relevant to the greater modern church. The carnality of the world has won them over.

There is a great omission in our Great Commission…
Matthew 28:18b-20 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

6. The mainline Jesus communities have nearly removed the external standard of obedience to God’s WORD, and we are largely incapable of measuring our real spiritual condition. We have become blinded.

Colossians 2:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ.”

THE CONSEQUENCES OF SELF WILL

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. John 10:10 NASB

Abundantly – ‘Perisseuo’, (in this verse ‘perisson’), means ‘to be present overabundantly or to excess,’ censoriously ‘to be superfluous,’ and of persons ‘to be superior or superabounding.’ Transitively the sense is ‘to make overrich,’ ‘to provide superabundantly.’”[4] Paul doesn’t help us much here either by simply adding hyperbole hyperperisseuo, hyperekperissou, hyperekperissos… the ‘hyper’ adding a superlative to an already over-the-top term.

Has the church also lost the idea of life in Jesus to the abundance? The reason is we have continually, over and over in a habitual manner, given into the yetzer Hara- the ways of the world, our self-will influenced by the fallen and the falling. Jesus didn’t intend for us to continue to live this way. It is even not uncommon to hear in Christian circles the excuses and justification for adopting this broken belief system:

“Welp… I’m only human ya know!”
“I know I am way short of where I should be but I am better than yesterday… or better than so-and-so…”
“We are all just sinners who sin!”
“Nobody’s perfect!”
“You should give yourself permission to fail…”

1 Corinthians 6:11 “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Ephesians 2:4-6 “But because of His great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in our trespasses. It is by grace you have been saved! And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus”

THE RESULTS OF NOT LIVING OUT YOUR SPIRITUAL DESTINY

“When one does not have a Divine Purpose then any ole’ purpose will do…” -Steve

Ephesians 5:17 “Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is.”

Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you as My priests. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your children.”

A common position for many modern believers to adopt is the ‘ I did not know any better” mantra that has become pervasive in the world. And there is a certain level of mercy and even immunity granted by God for genuine ignorance. Yet it is unlikely that those excuses will hold water with the advent of our current ‘information age’ and the near-infinite accessibility of the scriptures. Additionally, there are THOUSANDS of hours of good, solid, spirit-led teaching available for a true seeker to engage with.

There was a time when God ‘winked’ at humanity’s state of blindness and ignorance. In the verse from Hosea above, the stipulation for ‘being destroyed’ by ignorance was tied directly to, “Because you have rejected knowledge”. A Divine Destiny today is potentially more achievable than in any other era in modern humanity.

Acts 17:30 KJV “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent”

Repentance is relegated to the status of something like a cussword in our progressive culture. In the pursuit of endless affirmant and positive feelings, we have forgotten the higher callings of repentance, submission, and pure obedience. This has caused many to adopt a ‘follow your heart’ or ‘just find a good career’ attitude towards the term ‘destiny’. This is to our spiritual detriment, beloved family of God. We were specifically created (Eph 2:10 – workmanship = ‘poiéma’ [where our English ‘poem’ is derived] ‘that which has been made of the hands of God as creator’.) for ‘such a time as this’ for a divine purpose that is of divine importance.

To repent means to turn the center of our ‘yetzer’ (soul, driving force, heart, will, plan, imagination) back around towards God and His will. This is the beginning of the process for a believer to walk out their Divine Destiny. When our ‘hearts’ (nephesh, yetzer) have been properly aligned with the heart of God then what is important to Him becomes our passion, and what is unimportant to Him and His Kingdom becomes reproachable to us.

Matthew 6:31-33 “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles strive after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.”

First means first.

How do you start the process of finding and walking out your Divine Destiny:

When your heart has been purified and sanctified by the washing of the water of the Word and the living waters of the Spirit you will find that your priorties become sacred and holy.
What does your spirit love… what does it hate? Your purpose is likely engaged with both.
If you did not have to ‘worry’ about ‘making a living’ what would you do with God’s grace?

Ways to measure where you are on that Divine path:

What are you doing with your time? Be honest with yourself and take good inventory.
What are you doing with your affections? If it is about comfort, entertainment, hobbies, wrong people… then something is out of alignment.
What are you doing with your money? If it is consumed by bills or selfish goals it is not being used as a Kingdom asset the way God desires.

Matthew 6:21 “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

These are hard truths that many will reject or react negatively to… but Godly heroes will do the hard thing. We would not pen these words to you and for you if we did not confidently believe that you could be victorious and successful in the callings of God. The community that surrounds you now (TOV, Beloved), is part of God’s ordained way of empowering you for this abundant life and high calling. Utilize these Divine assets and see the blessings of God manifest in your life and family. The upward trajectory that reverses the fall of this gravity-infested cosmos is readily and powerfully within our grasp… the Kingdom of God is in your hand!

Written by Dr. Will Ryan and Dr. Steve Cassell

[1] As a name for the Devil or Satan, the more common name in English, “Lucifer” does not occur in the original languages of the Bible; it is in neither the Hebrew text nor the Greek text. In my opinion, it is an unfortunate translation of the KJV (and of John Wycliffe) here in Isa 14:12 which most modern versions do not have. The Hebrew word in Isa 14:12 is “helel” (הֵילֵל), meaning, “shining one”, from the root word, “halal” meaning, “to shine”. The word was used to describe Venus, the morning (or evening) star (actually a planet!), but which easily outshines Sirius. The complete phrase in the Hebrew is “helel ben-shachar” (הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר) meaning “Venus, son of the morning”, or, “Morning star, son of the morning”. The Septuagint (in Greek) translated the word, “heosphoros” which means, “Morning star”. This translation is correct. The Latin Vulgate (Jerome 400 AD) translated the word, “lucifer” meaning “light bearer”. This translation is arguably correct – for Latin. It is apparent that the KJV translators struggled with the Hebrew and transliterated the Latin word instead of translating it. John Wycliffe (who translated from the Latin and knew no Greek or Hebrew) also appears to have been flummoxed as he left the word untranslated. They appear to ignore the fact that the same word appears elsewhere in the Latin Bible describing other things. (2 Peter 1:19, Job 11:17, 38:32, Ps 110:3) It is only in the later English Christian tradition that “Lucifer” became a proper noun referring to the Devil before his fall, which the Hebrew does not do. The original spiritual beings were considered luminaries in the classical ancient near eastern cultures and to that regard, this passage would have been interpreted as the falling of the cosmic evil leader we refer to as “THE SATAN” figure but the intended audience certainly would not have called that entity by the name of lucifer. We have to be careful with interpreting Satan as “lucifer” because Jesus also is described similarly as the morning star in Revelation 2. To be clear the term is best understood in Hebrew as a luminary or spiritual being; in that context the given name lucifer could actually be applied to Jesus as much as or in the same way as it is applied towards Satan. To be clear perhaps both spiritual beings were seen as “leaders” or the spiritual beings who “shined brighter” than the others. One fell away and one is seated on the heavenly throne. Therefore, Lucifer often referred to as a proper name for Satan as per popular culture in not the best name or title for the one we call Satan in terms of biblical study. Follow this article for more:

Was “Satan” in the Old Testament?

[2] “SATAN REBELLED BEFORE THE CREATION OF HUMANKIND AND TOOK A THIRD OF THE ANGELS WITH HIM.”

This is an excellent example of how a Christian tradition can become doctrine. 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. There is only one passage that mentions a “third” of the angels (presumably) and Satan/the serpent in tandem (Rev 12:1–9):

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. 3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. 5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.

7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8 but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 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.

I say that this passage is “presumably” about one-third of God’s heavenly host being fallen because it is not clear that the “third of the stars” swept down by the dragon (serpent/Satan) refers to the angels who already are assisting the devil. It could well be that the one-third are good angels who have been defeated by the dragon. There are good reasons to take that position, namely, that Revelation 12:4 appears to be the fulfillment of Daniel 8:10. For the purposes of this discussion, though, we will presume that this third refers to evil supernatural agents in league with Satan.

The passage is clear that the timing of this conflict involving a third of the angels occurred in conjunction with the first coming of the Messiah:

And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne. (Rev 12:4–5) The birth of the Messiah is clearly in view, as Revelation 12:5 points readers to the messianic theme of Psalm 2:8–9:

Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.

You shall break them with a rod of iron

and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

The reference to the child born to rule the nations as being “caught up to God and to his throne” is an explicit reference to the resurrection and ascension—the key events that result in the defeat of Satan and the inauguration of the kingdom of God on earth. Scores of scholars recognize this point. Beale is representative:

The destiny of the Christ-child is described in an allusion to Ps. 2:7–9, which prophesies that God’s Son will defeat all worldly enemies and then be enthroned as ruler over the earth. In fact, Christ is referred to as a “male son” to show that he is the initial fulfillment of the Psalm, which is the decisive event for the successful growth of the church. The last clause, referring to Christ’s ascent, implies that the Ps. 2:7–9 prophecy about God’s messianic Son has begun to be fulfilled.… In context, this initial fulfillment means that, as in ancient times, so again the dragon has been defeated. This time the defeat has occurred through the resurrection and ascent of Christ.

The first advent context continues into Revelation 12:13–17:

13 And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15 The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with a flood. 16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. 17 Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.

The wording of verse 17 is as clear an association of the vision to the first coming of Jesus as the earlier citation of Psalm 2: “Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” This simply cannot be construed as describing a primeval rebellion prior to the creation of humanity in Eden. Since there is no other passage in the Bible that uses the “third” language in conjunction with a satanic conflict, the idea that Satan and one-third of the angels rebelled at that time is a traditional myth.

Michael S. Heiser, Demons: What the Bible Really Says about the Powers of Darkness (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 243–245.

[3] “Epistemological” – Philosophy. Relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

[4] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 828). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.