Tag Archives: theology

The Way Back to One Another: A Review of Koinōnia in an Age of Aloneness

Posted by expedition44 on

Introduction

The contemporary Western church finds itself in a paradox. It is more connected than ever through digital means, yet increasingly marked by fragmentation, loneliness, and relational shallowness. The Way Back to One Another (by Jeff Galley & Phillip Newell Smith) enters this tension with both clarity and conviction, offering a compelling diagnosis of what it terms “aloneness” and a corresponding call toward rediscovering interdependent, Christ-centered community.¹

This work is not merely sociological in its concern. It is profoundly theological. At its core lies the conviction that the human person is created for shared life, and that the church is the primary locus in which this reality is embodied. The authors argue that loneliness is not simply an emotional deficit but a disruption of God’s creational and redemptive intent.² This review seeks to affirm the strengths of the work while situating its claims within a broader biblical-theological framework, offering both edification and gentle admonition for the sake of the church’s formation.

NOTE: Scroll to the bottom for the YouTube X44 Author Interview

The Diagnosis of Aloneness

One of the most significant contributions of the book is its distinction between loneliness and what it calls “aloneness.” Loneliness may be understood as a subjective emotional state, whereas aloneness is a deeper ontological condition marked by the absence of meaningful, interdependent relationships.³ This distinction is not merely semantic. It reflects a theological anthropology that resonates deeply with Genesis 2:18, where the first “not good” in Scripture emerges prior to the entrance of sin.

The Hebrew term לְבַדּוֹ (levaddo) denotes not merely solitude but a form of existential isolation.⁴ The divine response is not the provision of information, structure, or even worship practices, but the creation of עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (ezer kenegdo), a corresponding relational partner.⁵ As John Walton notes, this passage establishes relationality as intrinsic to human ontology rather than incidental to it.⁶

The authors rightly perceive that modern Western culture has normalized a form of existence that Scripture identifies as deficient. The church, rather than resisting this formation, has often accommodated it, offering proximity without participation and programs without presence.⁷ In this sense, the book functions prophetically, calling the church to repentance from a subtle but pervasive individualism.

Koinōnia as Theological Foundation

The central constructive proposal of the book is the recovery of κοινωνία (koinōnia), a term that encompasses shared life, mutual participation, and covenantal belonging.⁸ While often translated as “fellowship,” its semantic range is far richer, denoting a dynamic participation in both God and one another.⁹

Acts 2:42–47 provides the paradigmatic expression of this reality. The early church is described as devoted not only to teaching and prayer but to a shared life marked by economic redistribution, daily presence, and communal meals.¹⁰ As Michael J. Gorman observes, this is not an optional expression of Christian life but its very essence, a participation in the life of the crucified and risen Christ.¹¹

The book captures this well, particularly in its emphasis on shared identity, shared purpose, and shared experience.¹² These categories reflect a lived ecclesiology that resists reduction to institutional forms. Instead, they call for a reorientation toward embodied presence and mutual dependence.

Toward a Hebraic Recovery of Community

While the book is deeply aligned with New Testament expressions of community, it would be strengthened by a more explicit engagement with its Old Testament foundations. The rhythms of Israel’s life were structured around practices that cultivated relational interdependence.

The Deuteronomic festival tithe provides a striking example. Israel was commanded not only to give but to gather, to eat, and to rejoice together before the Lord.¹³ This practice functioned as a formative mechanism, shaping a people whose identity was inseparable from shared presence and celebration. As Christopher Wright notes, Israel’s economic and liturgical life was designed to reinforce covenantal solidarity.¹⁴

Similarly, the concept of חֶסֶד (hesed) underscores the covenantal nature of relationships within Israel. Hesed is not merely kindness but steadfast loyalty expressed in concrete action.¹⁵ It binds individuals into a network of mutual responsibility that reflects the character of God Himself.

The absence of these categories in the book does not undermine its argument but does suggest an opportunity for deeper theological grounding. The vision it articulates is not a novel innovation but a recovery of ancient covenantal patterns.

Covenant, Commitment, and the Shape of Discipleship

One of the most compelling aspects of the book is its insistence that meaningful relationships are formed not through affinity but through commitment. The narrative of intentional, sustained relational investment illustrates that depth emerges over time through shared presence and vulnerability.¹⁶

This aligns closely with the biblical concept of covenant. The Hebrew term בְּרִית (berit) denotes a binding relational commitment that persists beyond fluctuating emotions or circumstances.¹⁷ In the New Testament, this finds its fulfillment in the new covenant inaugurated by Christ, which establishes a community marked by mutual self-giving.¹⁸

Discipleship, therefore, cannot be reduced to information transfer or individual spiritual disciplines. It is inherently communal. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer argues, the Christian life is life together under the Word, where believers bear one another’s burdens and confess their sins to one another.¹⁹ The book rightly calls the church back to this reality, emphasizing that spiritual formation occurs within the context of shared life.

Pastoral Implications and Admonition

The pastoral implications of this work are both urgent and far-reaching. The loneliness epidemic is not merely a cultural phenomenon but a theological crisis. It reveals a disconnect between the church’s practices and its calling.

The authors offer a hopeful vision, but this vision requires costly obedience. It demands a relinquishing of autonomy, a willingness to be known, and a commitment to others that mirrors the self-giving love of Christ.²⁰ As N. T. Wright reminds us, the church is called to be the place where God’s future is brought into the present through a community shaped by love.²¹

At the same time, a gentle admonition is warranted. The recovery of koinōnia must be grounded not only in practical steps but in a robust theological framework that integrates creation, covenant, and new creation. Without this grounding, there is a risk of reducing community to a strategy rather than recognizing it as the very life of God shared among His people.

Conclusion

The Way Back to One Another offers a timely and necessary call to the church. It exposes the inadequacy of superficial connection and invites believers into a deeper, more demanding vision of shared life. Its strengths lie in its clarity, its accessibility, and its compelling portrayal of what authentic community can look like.

Ultimately, the book reminds us that the gospel is not merely a message to be believed but a life to be lived together. The church is not a collection of individuals but a covenantal people, gathered by God and sustained through mutual participation in His life.

If the church is to faithfully respond to the loneliness of our age, it must recover this vision. Not as an optional enhancement, but as the very essence of what it means to be the people of God.

Footnotes

  1. Jeff Galley and Phil Smith, The Way Back to One Another (IVP, 2025), 12.
  2. Ibid., 18.
  3. Ibid., 22.
  4. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2:94.
  5. Genesis 2:18.
  6. John H. Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve (IVP Academic, 2015), 82–85.
  7. Galley and Smith, 31.
  8. BDAG, s.v. “κοινωνία.”
  9. Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology (Hendrickson, 2007), 45–47.
  10. Acts 2:42–47.
  11. Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord (Eerdmans, 2004), 284–289.
  12. Galley and Smith, 69.
  13. Deuteronomy 14:22–27.
  14. Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (IVP, 2004), 195–198.
  15. Nelson Glueck, Hesed in the Bible (Hebrew Union College, 1967).
  16. Galley and Smith, 68–70.
  17. Scott W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant (Yale University Press, 2009), 27–31.
  18. Luke 22:20; 2 Corinthians 3:6.
  19. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (Harper, 1954), 21–30.
  20. Philippians 2:5–11.
  21. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Fortress, 2013), 1040–1045.

Marriage Intimacy – Conference Notes

Posted by expedition44 on

Covenant Intimacy: Cultivating Oneness in Marriage

Marriage in the biblical sense is not merely a social contract or a partnership; it is a sacred covenant—a divinely instituted bond that mirrors God’s covenant love with His people. The Hebrew term berith (בְּרִית) denotes a solemn, binding agreement, marked not only by promises but by loyalty, faithfulness, and mutual self-giving. In the New Testament, this covenantal reality is deepened through Christ, who embodies sacrificial love (agape, ἀγάπη) that calls spouses to serve one another in humility and grace (Ephesians 5:21–33).

At the heart of covenant intimacy is oneness. Genesis 2:24 provides the foundational paradigm: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (yada’, יָדַע). This “knowing” is both relational and sexual, reflecting the full depth of emotional, spiritual, and physical unity. The Hebrew concept carries intentionality: to truly know is to commit, to enter into the mystery of the other in trust and vulnerability.

1. Emotional and Spiritual Intimacy: Grounded in Discipleship

Intimacy begins in the soul. Couples are called to cultivate mutual transparency, confession, and encouragement, echoing the pastoral model of discipleship. Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:32—“Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you”—offers a template for relational healing.

Practical Steps:

  • Regular Spiritual Check-ins: Set aside time weekly to share personal spiritual victories, struggles, and prayers. This mirrors the Jewish practice of hevruta, spiritual partnership, applied to marriage.
  • Scripture Sharing: Read passages together that emphasize covenant faithfulness, such as Hosea 2:19–20 or Song of Solomon 2:16. Discuss what it means to love sacrificially in the context of God’s covenant.

Example: A husband and wife may take a Psalm each week, reflecting on God’s steadfast love (chesed, חֶסֶד), and share how it encourages them to act faithfully toward one another.

2. Physical Intimacy as Covenant Expression

Sexual intimacy in marriage is not a mere physical act but a profound covenantal sign. Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 emphasizes mutual authority over one another’s bodies, highlighting consent, desire, and attentive love. The Greek word soma (σῶμα) underscores the body as integral to relational unity, not separate from spiritual or emotional connection.

Practical Steps:

  • Intentional Touch and Affection: Beyond sexual encounters, daily gestures of touch—holding hands, gentle hugs, and affirming kisses—strengthen the sense of oneness.
  • Sexual Rhythm and Communication: Like cultivating agape, sexual intimacy benefits from intentionality, listening, and mutual understanding rather than routine or obligation.

Example: A couple may schedule regular “covenant nights” where the focus is on emotional closeness first, leading into physical intimacy, emphasizing the full scope of knowing (yada’) one another.

3. Reconciliation and Covenant Repair

Covenantal intimacy is tested in conflict and broken trust. The Hebrew Scriptures often illustrate covenant repair through rituals of atonement, dialogue, and restoration (e.g., Numbers 5:5–10). In a marriage, bitterness or resentment acts as a barrier to oneness. Forgiveness is the vessel through which intimacy is restored.

Practical Steps:

  • Transparent Apologies: Use “I statements” to express hurt without blame. Example: “I felt distant when…”
  • Record-Free Covenant Keeping: Avoid keeping mental “ledgers” of wrongs. Instead, mirror God’s forgiveness (Colossians 3:13).
  • Counseling as Shepherding: Pastoral or Christian counseling can provide structured guidance in rebuilding trust.

Example: After a major disagreement, a couple may intentionally pray together, verbally affirming mutual commitment to repair and trust, creating a spiritual as well as relational healing.

4. Covenant Rituals and Symbolic Practices

Hebrew and Christian traditions often employ ritual as a tangible expression of covenant faithfulness. Small but intentional practices cultivate relational memory and reinforce unity.

Practical Steps:

  • Weekly Covenant Meals: Sharing intentional meals without distraction, reflecting on God’s covenant with each other, mirrors the covenantal feasts of Israel.
  • Anniversary Reflections: Beyond gifts, reflecting on God’s faithfulness through marriage fosters gratitude and spiritual depth.
  • Shared Devotional Practices: Singing, prayer, or journaling together enhances both spiritual and emotional oneness.

Example: A couple may light a candle each week, reading Song of Solomon 8:6–7, symbolizing love as a flame strengthened by trust and God’s covenant presence.

Conclusion

Covenant intimacy in marriage is a dynamic, God-centered pursuit. It is not achieved merely through techniques but through a sustained commitment to oneness—emotional, spiritual, and physical—modeled on Christ’s sacrificial love. Couples who approach marriage as a covenant discover that intimacy grows from shared vulnerability, forgiveness, and disciplined love. As shepherds of one another’s hearts, husbands and wives reflect the divine covenant in ways that are both deeply relational and spiritually formative.

Discussion Questions

  1. Oneness and Covenant Theology
    • Genesis 2:24 emphasizes the couple becoming “one flesh” (yada’, יָדַע). How does this Hebrew concept of “knowing” inform our understanding of emotional, spiritual, and physical intimacy in marriage?
    • In what ways can modern couples cultivate “oneness” beyond physical intimacy, reflecting covenant faithfulness in daily life?
    • Discuss practical ways to apply the biblical model of covenant to repair relational breaches or build deeper trust.
  2. Spiritual Intimacy and Discipleship in Marriage
    • Ephesians 5:21–33 and Colossians 3:12–14 call for mutual submission, forgiveness, and love. How does viewing marriage as a context for mutual discipleship transform conflict resolution, emotional vulnerability, and spiritual growth?
    • Share examples of habits, practices, or rituals that encourage spiritual intimacy and accountability within your marriage.
  3. Physical Intimacy as Covenant Expression
    • 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 presents the body as a shared authority (soma, σῶμα) within marriage. How does this concept challenge or expand contemporary cultural understandings of sexual intimacy?
    • Discuss how intentionality, communication, and mutual consent can enhance covenantal physical intimacy, making it both relational and spiritual.
  4. Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Covenant Repair
    • Reflect on biblical examples of covenant restoration (e.g., Hosea’s marriage as metaphor, Numbers 5:5–10). How do forgiveness and transparent apology function as practical and spiritual tools to rebuild intimacy?
    • What are the barriers in your own context to practicing “record-free” covenant-keeping, and how might couples cultivate an environment of grace and restoration?
  5. Ritual, Memory, and Symbolic Practices
    • How do small, intentional practices (shared meals, anniversary reflections, devotional rituals) reinforce covenantal intimacy?
    • Explore the relationship between symbolic acts and emotional memory. How can couples adapt biblical ritual principles (berith, בְּרִית) to cultivate ongoing intimacy in their marriage today?

Bibliography

  1. Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.
  2. Longman III, Tremper. Song of Solomon: An Introduction and Commentary. IVP Academic, 2001.
  3. Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology, Volume 1: Israel’s Gospel. InterVarsity Press, 2003.
  4. Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 5th ed., Zondervan, 2014.
  5. Perrotta, Kevin, and Louise Perrotta. Oneness: Jesus’ Vision of Marriage. 2024.
  6. Gregoire, Sheila, and Dr. Keith Gregoire. The Marriage You Want: Moving Beyond Stereotypes for a Relationship Built on Scripture, New Data, and Emotional Health. 2025.
  7. Reynolds, Adrian, and Celia Reynolds. Closer: A Realistic Book About Intimacy for Christian Marriages. 2021.
  8. Konzen, Dr. Jennifer. The Art of Intimate Marriage: A Christian Couple’s Guide to Sexual Intimacy. 2016.
  9. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12–36: A Commentary. Augsburg Fortress, 1985.
  10. Packer, J. I. Knowing God. IVP, 1973. (for theological foundations of covenant love)

Recommended Reading

  • Kevin and Louise Perrotta, Oneness: Jesus’ Vision of Marriage. 2024.
  • Adrian Reynolds & Celia Reynolds, Closer: A Realistic Book About Intimacy for Christian Marriages. 2021.
  • Sheila & Dr. Keith Gregoire, The Marriage You Want. 2025.
  • Dr. Jennifer Konzen, The Art of Intimate Marriage. 2016.
  • Emerson Eggerichs, Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs. 2004.
  • Timothy Keller & Kathy Keller, The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God. 2011.

The Covenant of Marriage Communication – Conference Notes

Posted by expedition44 on

Communicating as Covenant Partners: A Christ-Centered Theology and Practice of Marriage Communication

Introduction

Marriage is more than a social institution or emotional partnership—it is a holy covenant established by God, modeled throughout Scripture, and fulfilled in Christ’s relationship with the Church. Communication within marriage is not merely a set of skills; it is a sacramental expression of covenanted love, shaped by identity in Christ and sustained by grace.

In a world of transactional relationships and consumerized romance, Christian couples are called to something deeper: speaking truth in love (Eph. 4:15), bearing one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), and reflecting God’s steadfast love (חסד, chesed) in how they listen, speak, and respond to one another.

I. Covenant as the Foundation for Communication

1. The Hebraic Concept of Covenant

In Scripture, covenant (ברית, berith) is not a contract; it is a relational pledge grounded in faithfulness and identity. It structures marriage not around feelings or performance, but around being–with–one–another under God.

  • Genesis 2:24—“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
    One flesh implies unity in identity, purpose, and narrative—a shared life.
  • Malachi 2:14–16—God calls Israel my companion (רעיה, re‘iyah) in covenant, highlighting vow-keeping as essential to relational integrity.
    Marriage communication reflects this same vow-oriented faithfulness.

2. Christ and the Church as the Ultimate Covenant Model

Ephesians 5:25–33 anchors marital love in Christ’s sacrificial love for the Church:

  • Self–giving love
  • Cleansing through the Word
  • Nurturing growth and flourishing

In this model, communication is not negotiable nor optional—it is an expression of covenant identity.

II. Biblical Models of Christ-Centered Communication

1. Jesus: Communicating with Presence and Truth

Jesus embodied communication that was:

  • Attentive — He saw and called individuals by name (Mark 10:21; John 4:27–30).
  • Restorative — He spoke truth that healed rather than harmed (John 8:1–11).
  • Sacrificial — His words pierced, yet offered life (John 6:60–69).

Application for couples:

  • Be fully present in conversation (no half-listening).
  • Seek truth to heal, not to win.

2. Paul: Words That Build Up

Paul repeatedly encourages the church to communicate with grace:

  • Ephesians 4:29 — “Let no corrupting talk come out … but only such as is good for building up.”
  • Colossians 3:12–14 — Compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience, forgiveness, love.

Application for couples:

  • Make speech an agent of edification, not accusation.
  • Aim for restoration and peace (Matt. 5:9).

3. Proverbs: Wisdom for Everyday Speech

Proverbs 15:1 contrasts gentleness with provocation:

  • “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.”

Application for couples:

  • Choose tone and timing wisely.
  • Slow down before responding; give space for Spirit-guided reflection.

III. Avoiding Destructive Patterns: The “Crazy Cycle” and Other Traps

John and Stacy Edwards’ Love & Respect highlights the “Crazy Cycle”:

  • Wives want love, feel unheard →
  • Husbands want respect, feel dismissed →
  • Escalation ensues.

While their gender framing has sparked discussion, the core insight resonates with covenant communication: each partner deeply desires to be known, honored, and treasured.

Redemptive pattern:

  • Respond to hurts with clarifying questions rather than assumptions.
  • Affirm identity (“I hear you; your heart matters to me”), then seek understanding.

IV. Communication as Intimacy: Pillars for Practice

Drawing from One Extraordinary Marriage (6 Pillars of Intimacy):

1. Physical Presence

Not just being in the same room—being fully present and undistracted.

2. Emotional Space

Create an environment where vulnerability is welcomed, not weaponized.

3. Spiritual Unity

Pray together before you problem-solve together.

4. Intellectual Engagement

Value curiosity over defensiveness.

5. Relational Investment

Set rhythms (weekly check-ins, shared devotions) that speak covenant over chaos.

6. Communal Support

Accountability with trusted mentors or couples enriches communication health.

V. Tools That Serve Covenant Communication

1. Love Languages (Gary Chapman)

Understanding each other’s primary love languages—words of affirmation, quality time, acts of service, gifts, physical touch—enhances mutual empathy and expressive clarity.

2. Rhythms from Sacred Marriage (Gary Thomas)

Thomas reframes marriage as sanctification before satisfaction. Communication becomes a means to God’s glory, not just emotional comfort.

3. Eternal Perspective from The Meaning of Marriage (Timothy Keller)

Marriage reflects Christ’s gospel: steadfast, gracious, covenantal. Communication is therefore missionary—bearing witness in everyday speech.

4. You and Me Forever (Francis & Lisa Chan)

Focuses couples on shared Gospel mission, reducing self-absorption and enhancing sacrificial dialogue.

VI. Practical Communication Principles Grounded in Covenant Identity

1. Listen Before You Respond

Listening communicates worth and attention.

Practical tip:

  • Reflect back what you heard before responding.

2. Speak Truth in Love

Truth without love wounds; love without truth obscures reality.

Practical tip:

  • Use “I” statements and describe specific behaviors, not character labels.

3. Forgive and Seek Forgiveness

Covenant speech includes reconciliation language.

Practical tip:

  • Practice short, daily reconciliations to prevent relational drift.

4. Pray Before Difficult Conversations

Invite the Spirit to shape hearts before words are exchanged.

Practical tip:

  • Frame hard discussions with scripture (“Lord, make us quick to listen…” James 1:19).

5. Celebrate Small Wins

Acknowledging growth builds trust.

Practical tip:

  • Weekly “gratitude moments” during meals or prayer times.

Conclusion: Communicating as Covenant Worship

Communication in Christian marriage is not primarily a technique—it is covenant language. It reflects who we are in Christ and how covenant love shapes everyday life. Words become acts of worship, spaces of grace, and pathways of transformation when we speak and listen in the presence of God.

May our marriages echo the speech of Christ—patient, kind, humble, forgiving, and anchored in love that never ends (1 Cor. 13:4–8).

Discussion Questions

1. Covenant vs. Contract: How Does Ontology Shape Communication?

The Hebrew concept of בְּרִית (berith) frames marriage as a covenant grounded in identity and faithfulness rather than performance or emotional satisfaction.

  • In what ways does viewing marriage as covenant (rather than contract) reshape expectations during conflict?
  • How might this covenantal framework alter the way couples interpret silence, criticism, or emotional withdrawal?
  • How does Malachi 2:14–16 challenge modern consumerist assumptions about relational fulfillment?

2. Christological Communication: Imitating the Speech of Jesus

Ephesians 5 roots marriage in the self-giving love of Christ.

  • How does Christ’s communicative posture (John 4; John 8; Mark 10:21) inform a theology of attentiveness and truth-telling in marriage?
  • What does it mean to “cleanse by the washing of water with the word” (Eph. 5:26) in the context of marital speech?
  • In practical terms, how can couples ensure their words are redemptive rather than corrective alone?

3. The “Crazy Cycle” and the Doctrine of Sin

Eggerich’s “Crazy Cycle” describes relational escalation when love and respect feel absent.

  • How does this dynamic reflect the broader biblical doctrine of sin as relational fracture (Gen. 3)?
  • In what ways does pride distort listening and self-giving communication?
  • How might a theology of repentance interrupt destructive communication cycles?

4. Sanctification Through Speech

Gary Thomas argues marriage is more about holiness than happiness.

  • How can communication function as a primary instrument of sanctification?
  • Reflect on James 1:19–20 and Ephesians 4:29. What spiritual disciplines are necessary for obedient speech?
  • How might difficult conversations serve as means of grace rather than merely problems to solve?

5. Identity in Christ and Shared Mission

Drawing from Keller and the Chans, marriage reflects the gospel and participates in mission.

  • How does shared identity “in Christ” stabilize communication when emotions fluctuate?
  • What practices (prayer, shared Scripture, missional engagement) tangibly reinforce covenant identity in daily dialogue?
  • How does a shared eternal vision recalibrate trivial conflicts?

Bibliography

Chapman, Gary. The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts. Chicago: Northfield Publishing, 2015.

Chan, Francis, and Lisa Chan. You and Me Forever: Marriage in Light of Eternity. Colorado Springs: Claire Love Publishing, 2014.

Eggerichs, Emerson. Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004.

Keller, Timothy, with Kathy Keller. The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God. New York: Dutton, 2011.

Thomas, Gary. Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Gregoire, Sheila Wray. The Great Sex Rescue. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2021.

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

Block, Daniel I. “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel.” In Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, edited by Ken M. Campbell, 33–102. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.

Healing Before Fruitfulness: Joseph’s Sons and a Theology of Restoration

Posted by expedition44 on

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Narrative theology: Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation Commentary; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1982), 331–334.
  4. Suffering and fruitfulness: Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1989), 286–288.
  5. Naming as theological act: Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 47–62.
  6. Canonical resonance: Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: CUP, 1993), 84–102.
  7. Sirach: Ben Sira 30:21–25; see Michael W. Duggan, Sirach (New Collegeville Bible Commentary; Liturgical Press, 2016).
  8. Wisdom of Solomon: Wis. 3:1–9; see John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Westminster John Knox, 1997).
  9. Dead Sea Scrolls: Hodayot (1QHᵃ); see Carol A. Newsom, The Self as Symbolic Space (Brill, 2004).
  10. Joseph traditions: Joseph and Aseneth; see Ross Shepard Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph (Oxford University Press, 1998).
  11. 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).

Is Israel Still God’s Chosen people?

Posted by expedition44 on

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.

  1. 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.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Replacement-theology ↩︎

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

Posted by expedition44 on

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.

Teaching Philosophy and Theology

Posted by expedition44 on

I have taught theology and religion in higher education for most of my life and what continually excites me is the continual innovation of theological interpretation. I have taken many years of Biblical language coursework which reflects in me now holding several related degrees, and I often joke that all my years of hard study could be traded for the simple innovation particularly of a good digital interlinear within the last 5 years. As an example, higher education within theology now attempts to better teach how to use linguistic interpretation tools (such as an online interlinear) rather than spending a lot of time actually teaching the language itself.

There are several factors that influence this conversation. In philosophical instruction deduction and induction give us a basis for understanding and learning attribution. Deduction as a construct does not bring forth knowledge any more than induction. [1] Dewey M. Beegle, for instance, opts for a priority of induction (Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973, p. 16) and he chides the upholders of inerrancy for having permitted an Aristotelian scholastic method of deductive reasoning to obscure the phenomena of Scripture which, he feels, should have been the foundation on which inductive reasoning could have developed a truly biblical view. [2] Yet he has a place for both. Naturally an inductive study tends to be more exegetical in nature where several textures of interpretation come into play such as 1) inner texture, 2) intertexture, 3) social and cultural texture, 4) ideological texture, and 5) sa‐cred texture. [3] Deductive studies are usually eisegetical which is prompted by a topic, doctrine, or concept. [4] Logos Software specialists and Ben Ho would then deduct that “The deductive method of reasoning moves toward necessary conclusions derived from correct connections between premises premises which are all either given or assumed to be true. The inductive method of reasoning moves toward possible conclusions derived from hypothetical connections between premises (observations) which are selected from among all possible true premises (observations). [5]

Many of these things combined with a better modern world understanding of learning have helped scholars and teachers approach theology and the life applications of studying both biblically and systematically. Bloom’s Taxonomy, for instance, is a classification of the different objectives and skills that educators set for their students otherwise known as learning objectives. [6] Understanding learning styles and fine tuning a taxonomy tailored to theology such as I began explaining through the lens of linguistics has very much changed the shape and applications of religious texts academically and towards a spiritual life application.

It is quite intriguing for religion based on a text that is at most 3500 years old (in some cases) to still be the topic of several new theological revelations. [7] And I say this from historical texture rather than spiritual. I also find that as religious studies, biblical studies and both systematic and biblical theology are all closely related fields; the nature of the scientific approach can change immensely across the different threads. [8] I have found that as time flows different things impact the interest levels of students that you might not get in other humanities. Authorship seems more well read in a spiritual climate, practices, beliefs, and traditions [9] are often greater impacted by culture trends and larger organization input. On one hand the more systematic side of things tends to be objective and academic while the experiences, approaches, applications, and examinations [10] (discussed more often in a taxonomy conversation) often tend to be more of the spiritual nature and difficult to measure. There is also an anthropological, cultural, and sociological texture [11] that influence interpretation both at the level of the intended audience and to our current life application. These tend to carry more faith based or subjective assertations. All of these dynamics have the ability to deepen your understanding of the religion at hand but accomplish the feat in very different methodologies. 

I say all of these things, to come to the conclusion that there has never been as exciting as a time in history to teach theology. Unlike the other humanities, this will have the power to change every facet of life as you know it. Your life will truly be transformed by the interpretation of the text.

  1. https://philosophical-theology.com/2024/05/05/deduction-induction-tag/
  2. https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/induction-and-deduction-with-reference-to-inspiration
  3. Vernon K. Robbins. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1996. ISBN 978-1-56338-183-6.
  4. https://www.fastmissions.com/article/inductive-vs-deductive-study
  5. https://sermons.logos.com/sermons/113029-inductive-and-deductive-bible-studies?sso=false
  6. https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/#gsc.tab=0
  7. https://the-bible.net/how-old-is-the-bible/
  8. Carson, D. A. (2018). NIV, Biblical Theology Study Bible, eBook: Follow God’s Redemptive Plan as It Unfolds throughout Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. ISBN 9780310450436.
  9. Sponsel, Leslie E. (2014). “Spiritual Ecology”. In Leeming, David A. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion (2nd ed.). Boston: Springer. pp. 1718–1723. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6086-2_9295. ISBN 978-1-4614-6087-9.
  10. Garrett, James Leo (2014). Systematic Theology, Volume 1, Fourth Edition. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 20. ISBN 9781498206594.
  11. Andy Clark, David J Chalmers (January 1998). “The extended mind”. Analysis. 58 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1093/analys/58.1.7. JSTOR 3328150.; reprinted as: Andy Clark, David J Chalmers (2010). “Chapter 2: The extended mind”. In Richard Menary (ed.). The Extended Mind. MIT Press. pp. 27–42. ISBN 9780262014038.

TEDS Demise & Reformed Theology

Posted by expedition44 on

One of the most well-known Evangelical Seminaries in the world has agreed to be acquired by a Canadian university and move to British Columbia, the school’s leaders announced Tuesday. The move comes after years of financial and theological struggles resulting in declining attendance at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School—known as TEDS—an Evangelical Free Church Seminary. [1]

To those that are in the theology world, this announcement comes as no surprise. Over the last 10 years Trinity (TEDS) and the Evangelical Free Church of America has moved towards a reformed bend in their theology which I and many others would say continues to be the source of their demise. [2]

The Baptist convention is also unfortunately figuring this out over the last few years. [3] Reformed theology leads to Calvinism and those that understand the dilemmas involved with accepting the tenets of these views arguably can’t reconcile them with a Biblical character of God. [4] Many educated young people have walked away from Christianity altogether not being able to reconcile the nature of a loving God with these theological views. This is particularly unfortunate to the rest of the non-reformed world because it is an identifier that those leaving the faith didn’t comprehend that there were several other constructs of Christianity besides reformed theology. [5] According to Barna, less than 31% of all Christians in the US consider their theology to have some kind of reformed perspective (TULIP), yet reformed theology attempts to convince the rest of the world that their view is the only Biblical view. [6] This notion is killing evangelical Christianity and making people walk away from Jesus. We need to do better.

There are several reasons why reformed theology has been identified as a less Biblical interpretation of the scripture. [7] Along with not reconciling the Biblical character of God in core views of the belief such as Penal Substitutionary Atonement and hardline views of eternal conscious torment there are many other objections. [8] Calvinistic soteriology can lead to a misapplication of scripture and a misunderstanding of its storyline, such as predestination as an example of a concept that is not clearly supported by scripture. Perhaps the bigger problem is trying to position the Bible to say what you want it to say rather than exegetically and faithfully reading it for all it is worth. [9] The doctrine of total depravity and/or original sin which states that humans are inherently sinful and incapable of choosing God, can be seen as a denigration of human nature and a disincentive for personal responsibility. [10] Other critics argue that Reformed theology confuses the gospel of grace by bringing the law into sanctification and hedging on eternal security. [11]

Over the last 10 years I have watched other respected graduates of TEDS also become concerned such as the esteemed New Testament scholar Scot McKnight. [12]

Graduates of TEDS include the disgraced evangelist Ravi Zacharias, Christian television host John Ankerberg, and Collin Hansen, editor-in-chief of The Gospel Coalition. Longtime professor Don Carson also was one of the founders of The Gospel Coalition (a reformed organization), helping launch the so-called Young, Restless and Reformed movement that led to a Calvinist revival among evangelicals, but is now seeing a great demise. [13]

In the end, the theology of the reformation is quite problematic and rather unbiblical by most scholars’ opinions. [14] Since the 1980s the reformed movement has thrived through the support of great rhetorical spokesman such as the convincing late RC Sproul; but the world isn’t buying it anymore. For the first 1800 years of Christianity those ideas were unfounded, and of late, generations x,z, and millennials aren’t buying it either.

Most Christians today aren’t accepting the spoon-fed dogma; we need the text to exegetically be in harmony with the overall lens of the Bible. We demand a better Biblical theology. And that is a very good thing! As the average Christians become scholars, they need to be taught better theology in the church from the pulpit, or they are simply going to leave the church to find a better way. The next generation isn’t going to just take “the pastor’s word for it” anymore, they are done with being duped by those they thought they trusted in the name of religion. If we can learn anything from the demise of one of the largest evangelical seminaries in the world this should be the point, we take away. Expedition 44 has long sense been a source of truth examining the overall lens of the Bible and how it should be viewed in harmony. The Kings Commision School of Divinity (https://tkc.education/) and several other great institutions such as AWKNG (Heiser’s School), The Bible Project. (Tim Mackie’s School), Eternity Bible College (Francis Chan’s School), Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s Peterson Academy and other similar institutions have changed the way that students engage. Did you notice what all of these schools have in common? They aren’t reformed! Out with the old (well newer -old reformational thinking), and in with the new.

Engage with the text. Dive in. Don’t merely be spoon fed. This is the core of the great commission – A deeper discipleship individually and communally.

  1. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/04/trinity-evangelical-divinity-teds-moving-canada/
  2. https://blogs.efca.org/strands-of-thought/posts/arminianism-and-calvinism
  3. https://christoverall.com/article/longform/encore-reformed-and-reforming-the-sbc-christ-over-the-law-amendment/
  4. https://beyondcalvinism.blogspot.com/2016/11/dr-greg-boyd-on-romans-9-and-leaving.html
  5. https://www.bartehrman.com/branches-of-christianity/
  6. https://www.barna.com/research/is-there-a-reformed-movement-in-american-churches/
  7. https://www.theologymatters.com/articles/theology/2023/characteristics-of-reformed-theology/
  8. https://reknew.org/2015/12/10-problems-with-the-penal-substitution-view-of-the-atonement/
  9. https://soteriology101.com/2014/12/08/the-5-points-that-lead-me-out-of-calvinism/
  10. https://drjohnjackson.com/irresistible-grace/total-depravity/
  11. https://heidelblog.net/2014/05/do-the-reformed-distinguish-between-law-and-gospel/
  12. McKnight, S. The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011); ISBN: 978-0-310-49298-6
  13. IBID 1: https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/04/trinity-evangelical-divinity-teds-moving-canada/
  14. https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/was-the-reformation-a-mistake-an-excerpt-by-catholic-theologian-matthew-levering

The covenant and marriage 2

Posted by expedition44 on

HIS COVENANT – בריתו

In Hebrew the word Berith is nearly always translated as the English word Covenant. What is the meaning of the word covenant in Biblical context? The word covenant according to more than 40 biblical authors spanning 1500 remains consistent. In most situations the word takes on a pledge or an alliance, coming from the Semitic root word barah which means to bind, to cut and to break (bread). You might raise an eyebrow at the inference of bread, but if you are a covenant keeper you will immediately go to the elements of communion as a symbol of covenant. The idea goes back thousands of years when “deals” or “agreements” were made over the breaking of bread, which meant sharing a meal together. Today in the Middle East you might still find such a ritual.

Chaim Bentorah reminds us that, “When David said in Psalms 23:5:  “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:” he was making a reference to reconciliation with his enemies for when you had a meal together it was to talk peace.  Eating a meal together was an excellent opportunity to negotiate terms of a berith or covenant.  It was also an excellent opportunity to off your enemy by slipping a little poison in his food.  Thus, to share a meal with an enemy was the ultimate in a good will gesture.  You were showing that you trusted this enemy’s intentions for peace enough that you would stake your life on it believing he would not poison you.” [1]

However, in other Middle East cultures we see pacts or covenants were made by passing between cut pieces of flesh of an animal sacrifice.[2] In the Old Testament, the English phrase “make a covenant” is most often a translation of the Hebrew kārat berît, which literally means “cut a covenant.”[3] The verb kārat means “cut off, cut down,”[4] and the noun berît means “covenant,”[5] similar in meaning to the words pact, compact, treaty, alliance, and league. While other Hebrew verbs are sometimes used with berît, such as qûm (“establish” or “confirm”) and nātan (“give”),[6] kārat occurs ninety times in the Hebrew Bible in reference to making covenants.[7]

In the Ancient Near East, it was common for two people to make a covenant by cutting animals in half, splitting the halves, and then walking in between the pieces to make an oath. By walking between the split animals, each person was swearing that if they broke their part of the agreement, they would meet the same end as the sacrificed animal. [8]

In evangelicalism, there is a lot of talk about conditional and unconditional covenants; however, when you really dive in, you are going to find that every covenant has an element of conditionalism to it. I will even say, there really is no such thing as an unconditional covenant. In the dance of Grace, every amazing action is met with a reciprocal and similar reaction. [9] Ben Witherington shares, “covenants while many were unilateral, were almost always conditional in nature. This is the very nature of a covenant with stipulations, which if they were not kept, the suzerain had obligated himself to enact the curse sanctions. Thereafter, it was up to the suzerain to decide whether even to do another covenant or not. Fortunately for us, the Biblical Suzerain, our God, has chosen to continue to re-up, either renewing (some of the OT covenants), or in the case of the new covenant, starting afresh with a new covenant, which promised to be more permanent.” [10] Witherington uses the terminology, “more permanent” to show that our English idea of “unconditional” leaves us a little short.

If your wondering about God and animal sacrifice. You are probably heading in the right direction. My Friend Greg Boyd has an excellent write up here. Animals were sacrificed not because God needed them to forgive people but because his people needed them to remember the death consequences of sin and to therefore repent when they’d broken covenant with God. God meets them in their broken culture of animal sacrifice and eventually turns it towards His good. Later in Israel’s history, when people began sacrificing animals without repenting in their hearts, the Lord told them (through prophets like Isaiah, Hosea and Amos) that he despised their sacrifices, for they are meaningless without a change in heart. [11]

But it is easy to miss the point by simply studying ancient near east culture. You see Yahweh didn’t want to simply be another god to Israel, or do what the other gods were doing. The other gods acted in mutual agreement they wanted something physical from the people. John Walton reminds us that, “Typically, both parties to a contract, treaty or similar legal agreement could expect to benefit from their commitment. It is not at all clear that the Biblical text wants its readers to believe that Yahweh will receive some benefit from this relationship with the Israelites that he would not otherwise be able to obtain. The text speaks of great benefit awaiting the Israelites for their consistent obedience to their covenantal obligations. For Yahweh’s part, his actions do not appear to be based in self-interest but in a willingness to be gracious and to extend freely his blessing.” [12]

So, what does God get out of it? A relationship with us. Sound underrated? Maybe. But it goes back to the dance of Grace I have written so much about in my series “this is the Way.” The story of the Bible is that for some reason, this is what God desires more than anything and will stop at nothing to come back into a free will love relationship with his created beings. It is incomprehensible to our broken minds. This is the standard of covenant that we are then asked to live out to others.

As you could study covenant to many different levels, what I am really leaning into is the fundamental Biblical theme that God wants to partner with us. In the garden God offers to walk intimately with his treasured possession to reign and rule, keep and cultivate reconciling all of His creation to His glory. That first covenant was quickly broken but it doesn’t stop God from being the way maker. The story of the Bible is God’s plan to not only bring back the intimacy between man and maker in the garden but even surpass it that we might bear His very image, and kingdom kinship completely reconciled and “then some” in a recreated heaven and earth.

This partnership wasn’t merely intended for a husband and wife, although that become the biblical metaphor for such an image, but for every biblical relationship. God’s plan was for all of his relationship to be in covenant together. What does this mean? I guess you will need to wait for part three.

  1. https://www.chaimbentorah.com/2015/11/word-study-his-covenant-%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%aa%d7%95/
  2. IBID
  3. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), 503.
  4. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon, 136.
  5. Warren Baker and Eugene Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003), 166.
  6. According to a search of the text of the Hebrew Bible in The Scriptures: CD-ROM Resource Edition 1.0.
  7. See how “covenant” is italicized (added by translators) in 1 Samuel 11:2; 20:16; 1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10; Nehemiah 9:38; and Isaiah 57:8.
  8. https://cufi.org/resource/what-does-it-mean-to-cut-a-covenant/
  9. Dr. Will Ryan’s Book, “This is the Way” to covenant discipleship
  10. https://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/10/cutting-covenant-and-when-covenant.html
  11. https://reknew.org/2019/09/why-did-god-require-animal-sacrifice-in-the-old-testament/
  12. https://overviewbible.com/covenant-john-walton/

Faithful Exegesis – Teaching a better Hermeneutic

Posted by expedition44 on

Wait what? All that in the one word? -I don’t think so!

Just about every day I scroll through a “BIBLE” meme on Facebook that makes me cringe. I used to comment but I no longer do largely because I think sometimes people don’t interpret the comments as useful, or teaching better theology but as some kind of self-promotion, or “I think I am better than you” type of thing. I think that is unfortunate. I believe part of shepherding and discipleship is a Mars Hill or rabbinical teaching method of being open to constantly learning and working through a better understanding of the test with the giftings of those around you. To keep each other Biblically sharp and accountable to be faithful to the text. Letting people get really loose with the text has led to alot of bad theology and ditch diving. I believe the Bible greatly encouraged textual exploration together within the body. That is what the body of Christ is supposed to do. I have 40 years of deeply studying the Bible under my belt and God has gifted me with a certain learned spiritual intuition of exegesis. I hope it comes as a gift to those that have a learning posture towards the scripture. To those more interested in fighting or finger pointing, or making internet dumpster fires, I am not interested.

THE MEME:

At first glance this probably looks pretty neat. It’s challenging, it looks at the original language rather than an English glossed translation, it comes off as going deeper. So, what’s the problem? Well, it isn’t faithful.

A faithful translation means you let the text speak for the text. You don’t read your own desire into the text. This commonly referred to as good exegesis.

In this case, here are some issues:

  • One word? Sort of. The text is Genesis 3:9. Start by typing that into a browser followed by the word interlinear. The first link will be the Bible Hub, click it. The word is ’ay·yek·kāh and you will see the [are] is in parentheses. It technically isn’t in the text but linguistically it is- but it is understood such as an understood “YOU” in English. Click the word and you are going to find there is only one occurrence of this “word” or conjunction of words in the Bible. This is called a Hapax Legomenon. The basic hermeneutical law or idea of any Hapax Legomenon is because it is rare don’t read too much into it. See if you can find how it is used outside of the Bible to give you a better understanding of how the text uses it. But in this case, it isn’t a “TRUE” Hapax Legomenon in the sense that if you click the root word above which is Strong’s 335 you will see the root is “ay” in Hebrew which occurs 36 times in the Old Testament. We have a pretty good idea of what it means! There are some words or phrases in the Bible where we don’t even have the root anywhere else and that is a better example of a Hapax Legomenon, but they are both technically considered Hapax Legomenon’s. This one we can see essentially means “where or how” which makes sense in the English translation “where are you?” I would encourage you to read the usage and cultural notes below the word. These are theologically very basic and at times arguable, but still give you a better start. In this case it notes that the word can come with distress or lament. Seems true to this text! It also notes that this particular word is often noted of spiritual locations within the cosmos. Again, true to the text. Most of the time these notes don’t get too controversial and are written by well noted scholars. This is sort of important because there are other similar words in Hebrew that could have been used without a sometimes-spiritual emphasis. We see this importance in Deuteronomy 32 when the text asks “Where are there gods.” It is also used in 1 Samuel 9:18 in regard to the SEER. It is used in 2 Samuel 15:2 in regard to the city which is interesting and could be signified as one of the reasons I believe in ancient times cities were gatherings of fallen spiritual beings and people aligned to their ways and rival to Yahweh. In Job 2 it is used to ask where “the satan” came from. The problem is (as you can see to the column on the right of all the verses using this Hebrew root) there are at least a few texts that don’t seem to take on “spiritual spatial” significance, it just means where? So that tells us we can’t read too much into a sense of cosmic space every time we see the word used. Hermeneutically it may or may not have spiritual bearing. Therefore, we have to determine from the rest of the text whether it does or not. In other words, we don’t have the “RIGHT” to attribute a spiritual significance to the simple text “where” unless something in the rest of the text gives it to us for certain. If the text doesn’t grant it, then we have to determine if we the ability to say it could go that way, but we don’t know for sure. It may or may not have spiritual spatial implications. In this text we already know they are in Eden, so the context gives us the sacred space.

  • To say that it is one word is accurate (I would have said the same thing), but it’s a bit complicated as in Hebrew bits of different words form one word. This is actually really helpful in determining what one word can mean because we can break the word up and study the microcosm of it. In this case you would think all the things the author of that post says the word means would be great if the word could have been textually broken up that way. The problem in this case is it doesn’t say all those things. We get “where” which (as we already noted) may or likely implies a spiritual search-find. You could take away from the text exegetically that God is “searching us out” or “looking for us” or perhaps even noting that the space is spiritual as I already alluded to. All of those things could be good exegesis. That is what the text gives us. Next, we have the understood {ARE}. We don’t really get anything magical from that. Then we have “you” essentially as formed into the singular word. There is really not much to exegete there either. He is talking to a certain person. DO we have the right to insert our name here? Well, the genre of this text is a historical narrative. Simply telling the story. So no, we don’t really have the right to insert our name. Because God was seeking out Adam in the garden doesn’t give us the textual ability to say He searches us out the same. He may or may not, but the text doesn’t give us that warrant. So here you see the author of the meme breaking some huge theological and hermeneutical laws. He takes a text that isn’t about him and tries to make it about him or us. This is called reading into the text. Using the Bible to twist it into saying what you want it to say without the merit of the text giving you that. Now could it mean that later God will act the same towards you? Yeah, later the text may do that but here it doesn’t. However, if you read the text doing that for others in the story over and over and over you might come to an ontological conclusion that if there are 26 examples of God acting this way in the narrative, we have then maybe he acts this way towards me too! (But to be clear, the text still wouldn’t give us that for certain.) Sometimes people take a lot of latitude to say the scripture means something that the text never gave or intended to give. That seems to be the case here. It simply isn’t good theology or maybe even theology at all. It is saying the Bible says something in a text that doesn’t say that.
  • “God’s first words after the fall” – We don’t know this either. The Bible doesn’t give us the full account. There may have been other words. Perhaps these are the first words in the Bible after the fall. But making the statement that the author makes in the way that he does isn’t true. Does this seem nitpicky? Maybe but there is a difference, and it matters in biblical interpretation and textual criticism.
  • This is classic for someone trying to make a doctrine or in the authors words, “a whole theology” over something the text doesn’t say. The text says nothing of the lost. Was Adam lost? We aren’t told that he was. Was he asking for a confession. Later scripture tells us that when we sin, we need to confess, but that isn’t in the text here. What about restoration and redemption? Well, everyone knows God wants restoration and redemption, right? But this text doesn’t go here either. Are you following me? There are texts that talk about redemption and restoration but not this one. In fact, maybe the opposite. This text leads to exile from the garden, that is the opposite of restoration. So what it does tell us is exile may come before restorative acts. That could be a more faithful takeaway than what the author of the meme comes up with. The author improperly says the text means something that isn’t given to us. It is as if the author is trying to write his own Bible and proof text the word to say what he wants it to say. The real problem is that we are saying the word says something that it isn’t. Maybe other places say that, but a better hermeneutic is to only exegete what the text says. Don’t add or fill in anything. There is no context for the takeaways the author asserts over the text.

CONCLUSION

A Faithful reading of the text means we only take away what the text gives us. We can’t read anything else into it. I can’t tell you how many times in a sermon I hear a pastor say “the Bible says this” and goes on to quote a verse that doesn’t say anything close to what the pastor says it said. In many cases we have become all too comfortable with accepting things like this, and it has led to a lot of bad consequences. It seems there are so many people are using the Bible for their own gain saying what they want it to ay and that is unfaithful to the text.

NOTE; The Bible Hub is free, easily accessible and works well. LOGOS is better but is $$$.

Dr. Will Ryan