Greek Philosophy versus Hebrew Bible

In the first couple centuries of this common era, the Christians were severely persecuted. It was with Constantine having a vision that he decided to examine Christianity a little more openly. Unlike what many teach and say, Christianity did not become unified with the Roman culture during the reign of Constantine. It was actually afterward. However, we can still trace it back to Constantine as the man who initiated this "conversion".

Now, when Christianity became the "in" thing, suddenly you have a lot of people claiming Christianity as just another religion. There were some who were genuinely converted. Yet, what we don't see after this point is a clear and direct stream of thought to understand the Hebrew Bible in its own context. I only need to think of men such as Augustine, Jerome, and Thomas Aquinas to come to these conclusions. It was with the Greek philosophy that these men were taught that they understood the Bible. They read the Old Testament with a bent, and this likewise caused them to read the words of Paul and the other apostles with that same bent. Instead of letting Paul speak for himself, he was then reinterpreted through the mouths of Socrates, Aristotle, and the Stoics.

This has caused much damage. For example, when Paul tells us that there is neither slave nor free in Christ, it was the philosophers that argued that slaves are barely even human. Aristotle remarks, "That person is by nature a slave who can belong to another person and who only takes part in thinking by recognizing it, but not by possessing it. Other living beings (animals) cannot recognize thinking; they just obey feelings. However, there is little difference between using slaves and using tame animals: both provide bodily help to do necessary things." Aristotle then proceeds to tell us that a slaves is no more than "a tool of his master". Aristotle even claims that some people "are by nature destined to be ruled, even though they resist it". He thus concludes this thought by saying, "That is why the poets say: 'It is correct that the Greeks rule barbarians", for by nature what is barbarian and what is slave are the same." (Aristotle, Physica, vol. 1; Loeb Classical Library, 1252 b 8. See A.TH van Leeuwen, The Nacht van het Kapitaal, Nijmegen 1984, pp. 182-205)

It was then this Greek philosophy that would be used later in time to validate slavery. Yet, when we hear the historians tell us about slavery, they typically want to speak about how it was Christians that were extreme and difficult to convert to seeing the African Americans as people. Yet, I can't help but ask, if it were in Christianity that these thoughts festered, from where did Christianity gather them? It was in the work of marrying the Greek philosophy with the Hebraic teaching of the Scriptures that such a thought could even possibly be found in Christianity. 

What about women? We find Socrates arguing that women were the "weaker sex" , and claimed that being born a woman was a divine punishment, since being a woman is halfway between being a man and an animal. (Plato, Timaeus, trans. H.D.P. Lee (Baltimore: Penguin, 1965), 42A-C, 90C, 91A) We find also in Socrates' thought that men can do all things better than women (Plato, The Republic, trans. W.H.D. Rouse (New York: Mentor, 1956), 456A). It was Aristotle that taught, "The courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying." (Aristotle, Politics, trans. Oxford University, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Richard McKean, editor (New York: Random House, 1941), 1.1254A, 1259B, 1260A). In this, Aristotle argues that the man is the head over the wife, and that the wife is meant to be ruled over as the soul rules over the body. Aristotle also used this terminology to explain how a master rules over his slave. 

When we read our English versions of the Bible, we need to understand that it is translated from Greek. The original Greek interpretation of those verses is somewhat lost, simply because it is difficult to capture the full intent of the Greek words when translating into any other language. At the same time, we find that there are biases that also get translated into the text. So, when we are taught that the woman is the weaker vessel by Socrates, and we read 1 Peter 3:7 say the same thing, we assume that the apostle is repeating Socrates. Likewise, when we read Paul tell the people in Ephesus that the husband is the head of the wife, we assume naturally that he is reaffirming what Aristotle taught. The thought never even enters our minds that maybe what the apostles were saying was quite contrary to what the philosophers taught. 

One man wrote a book titles, "What Paul Really Said About Women". In this book, he looked at some of major texts that are used to oppress women, and he simply asked the question of whether the apostle Paul was affirming or speaking contrary to the philosophers. In the preface, he writes, "Theoretically, if I took our English translation of his words and translated them back into Greek, my words should be similar to Paul's original words. But when I tried doing this, such was not the case at all! In reality, the words that Paul chose to use imply different ideas from those conveyed by the English words we use to translate his writings. In fact, our English words imply ideas that Paul deliberately avoided! If Paul had wanted to say what we think he said, then he would have chosen quite different words than what he wrote" (John Temple Bristow, What Paul Really Said About Women, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers 1988), pp xi). 

As I've been looking into this myself, I've begun to realize that the Bible was written by many different authors, and all of them were Jewish. The only man that might not be Jewish descent was Luke. That is debated. Yet, I do ask the question, if 64 books of the Bible were written by Jews, then wouldn't their mindset be a different mindset of the Greek philosophers? The argument can be made that the New Testament writers would have been Hellenized, yet I would like to appeal to Acts 6:1 to make the case that not all of the Jews were Hellenized. Even with this, if some were, then how do we know that Peter and Paul were not? We know because the way that they write is thoroughly Jewish. 

For example, when the Hebraic man debates, he will mention on verse, or only part of the verse, knowing that his audience knows the verse and context. We find this throughout both Paul and Peter's epistles. They reference the verse, but they don't simply mean that verse, they mean the whole context of that verse, and we then see that the context of the verse is actually pointing to this larger picture. Yet, because many of us are not Hebraic, we don't pick up on these things. When we read Paul, we find that he uses a lot of word plays. The reason for this is because the Hebrew Bible also uses a lot of word plays. In fact, the Hebrew language itself is set up in a manner that word plays are necessary. 

So, were the apostles reaffirming that the Greek philosophy was correct? Absolutely not! In no way did they ever agree with the Greek philosophers. Instead, when they wrote to the Greek speaking Hellenized world, they corrected their wrong mentalities. Because we have been too Catholic in following the traditions of the church fathers (which sounds like a rebuke Jesus gave to the Pharisees) instead of seeking to understand the original intent and heart of God, we have perpetuated wrong philosophy through the generations. Slaves are not less than. Other races are not less than. The Jewish people have not been left out of the promises of God. Women are not under men. Wives are not to be ruled over by their husbands. Teachers are not to teach in lecture form like the Greeks. Discipleship is not about learning information - it is about maturity and character. Authority is not about rule or governing; it is about being a servant. We do not rule over one another like the goyim (Gentiles), but instead those that are in authority are they that serve. In this way, there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile, black or white, boss nor employee, clergy nor layman, teacher nor student, fathers nor children, city folk or country folk, or anything else that might divide us. We are all one and the same in Christ - He has broken down that wall of hostility between us. 

That is what is Hebraic. It is the marriage that brings us all to equal status together. We are no longer two, but now have become one. All the things that we have thought would cause someone to be "under" or "less than" us is taken away in the marriage that we partake to become adopted children of God. We are the Bride of Christ, and to be in Christ, we are all now unified and one. No one is over or under - all are made one in Christ. That is the difference between the Hebrew and the Greek. The Greek looks for distinctions between, but the Hebrew sees the marriage and reconciliation of all things. The Greek sees that spirit and flesh fight against one another. The Hebrew sees that in Christ the spirit and flesh marry to become one in harmony together. Every single verse in the Bible teaches us this. Even the ones that speak against it are actually advocating it, because they are spoken in contexts that tell us these views and opinions are wrong. It is an endless study to understand the heart and disposition of God, but I think we need to start here. God is the one who frees the captive and gives liberation to the oppressed. If we are then bringing oppression and bondage to people, we are not in Christ. 

Head Coverings Leads to Angels?

            1 Corinthians 11:2-15 is one of those passages that very few understand, and I think that the trouble is more to do with our English translations than not. However, with that being said, I think that even when we try to understand what Paul is saying by examining the Greek, we're still only hearing one side of the conversation. What exactly Paul is referencing in this passage we're not 100% sure, and therefore it makes it difficult to understand exactly what he is saying. For this study, we're going to be looking at some Greek. Yes, the dreaded language that the New Testament was actually written in. Now, first off I want to say something: This is not going to be entirely conclusive, because I want you to form your own opinion. I’m going to give enough information to help us understand what is being said, but I don’t want to conclude and bring all of the loose ends together.

            If we translate literally from the Greek to the English, we find that 1 Corinthians 11:2-15 reads: “But I praise you because you have remembered all things of me and you hold fast to you the traditions as I delivered to you. But I wish you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the head of a wife, the husband, and head of Christ, God. Every man praying or prophesying [while] having [anything] down over [his] head shames the head of him. But, every women praying or prophesying with the head uncovered shames the head of her, for it is one and the same thing with the woman who has been shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shorn; but if [it is] ugly for a woman to be shorn or be shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed is obligated not to be covered, the head being the image and glory of God; but the wise is the glory of husband, For man is not from woman, but woman because of the man. Therefore the woman ought to have authority on the head because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither woman separate from man nor man separate from woman in [the] Lord, for as the woman from the man so also the man through the woman; but all things of God. Among you yourselves judge: is it fitting, a woman to pray to God uncovered? [Does] not nature itself teach you that a man indeed if he wears his hair long, it is a dishonor to him, but a woman, if she wears her hair long, it is a glory to her? The long hair has been given to her instead of a covering.”

            This text has been used to say that men should keep their hair short, and that women should not shave their heads. It has also been used to support the notion of head coverings (one only needs to think of the Anabaptists). It has also been used to support the notion that men are superior to women, and therefore women should not teach, lead, learn, speak, etc in the church. Yet, when we read what the actual Greek says, it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to us English speakers. A lot of the things that we have alluded to are actually not entirely there, and the things that we thought were there are simply flat out vacant from the text. One thing that we do know is this: Paul is speaking of head coverings.

            Something to know about Greek is that the same words for man and woman mean husband and wife. Paul could have used words that would mean single men or women, but they bring a connotation that Paul was not wanting to say. So, it is the job of the translator to ask whether Paul is addressing husbands and wives, or whether Paul is addressing men and women. In the above translation, I chose husbands and wives only when we can be certain from the context that it is supposed to be husbands and wives.

            Paul used the Greek word kephale instead of arche when speaking of the head. Arche would mean absolute ruler, chief, or the one who is boss over. Kaphale means the literal head – that thing that has a skull, brain, nose, ears, mouth, etc. Kaphale can also be used as a military term: the first one onto battle. The fact that Paul would use the word kaphale instead of arche tells us that Paul did not intend on saying anything about Christ being the ruler over man, nor man being the ruler over the woman. Though Paul does assert that Christ is the arche over the church in Colossians 1:18, in this specific passage that statement is not made.

            The word for shorn is a form of the word keiro, which means to sheer (as in a sheep) or to cut short (as in one’s hair).

            The word for covered is katakalupto, which is used nowhere else in the New Testament. Kalupto is used elsewhere to mean “cover”, “hide”, or “conceal”, but Paul deliberately added the prefix kata to change the meaning to “cover down over”. In all other passages, when something is “on” someone’s head, the prefix used is epi. Here Paul is saying kata. For this reason, some have translated this as meaning “wearing a veil”. If veil means face covering, then this translation is misleading.

            Hair is the Greek word thrix, but here Paul uses the word kome. It, too, is used nowhere else in the New Testament. It denotes long hair that is ornamented.

            Nature, which Paul said bears witness that men should not have long hair, is the word phusis. Phusis can mean nature, as in the natural law, or natural order, but it can also mean instinct that we hold to from long standing tradition. In that sense, phusis can mean “long established custom”, or “habit”.

            What was Paul saying? Paul appeals to a “tradition” that he had told them before. Now, when Paul wants to say to remember the Gospel that was declared to them, he typically uses the word we translate as Gospel. Here, however, he seems to be alluding to something that he had taught while being with them. Because modern readers were not there when Paul delivered these teachings, we have little clue to what Paul is referencing. However, there is a hint in 2 Corinthians 3:7-18. Paul reminds the church in Corinth about Moses wearing a veil “over” his face. The idea of wearing a head covering was linked to the shekinah glory of God shining down upon the devout. Yet, Paul is asserting that we experience greater glory than Moses through Christ. And his point in 2 Corinthians 3 is that we should have unveiled faces, because it is looking into the face of the other believers that we are then changed from glory to glory. It is Christ in you – the hope of glory – that changes your brethren. We let that glory shine out from our faces, not hiding behind a veil or closing our eyes to it, but instead allowing all to see the glory of God in us and through us.

            Now, this leads me to a specific conclusion. Paul is talking about the prayer shawl. The prayer shawl would traditionally be placed upon the head, and it would then hang down over the head and face. Paul is instructing them not to have this sort of covering, because their covering is Christ. The head of every man is not Moses, but Christ. We have the blood of Jesus as our covering. This is important because we can interpret it for today as well. Should we close our eyes when we pray? Should we all bow our heads? Or should we behold in one another’s faces the glory of God? Should we sit in pews where everyone faces forward? Should we be seeing the back of someone’s head while listening to the preaching? Or should we instead be able to face one another and see everyone’s reaction?

            So, we don’t cover our faces, but allow our faces to be seen. That way, everyone is able to see our Head – Christ. It is a play on words here. Christ is the head over all, but Paul uses the word kaphale meaning the literal body part that sits upon your neck. He is pointing at your head and saying, “What you do with that, and whether you cover your face, is a reflection upon your head – Christ.”

            So lets get back to 1 Corinthians 11. Paul starts to speak about women, and how their head is their husband. Now, from the literal translation of the Greek text, we assume that Paul is asserting that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Now, when we say that the head of the wife is her husband, are we then asserting that women are under men? No. We’re saying that the wife is subject to her husband. But what does that mean? The word in Ephesians 5:21-33 that is used to say that the wife is subject to her husband is hupotassomai, which can be translated as, “be supportive of”, “be responsive to”, “give allegiance to”, or “tend to the needs of”. Paul is not asserting that the man is the arche over the woman, and therefore is the ruler of the house. Instead, Paul is saying that the man is the literal head – that thing upon the two shoulders – and thus needs to be supported by his wife. So, when we read this portion of 1 Corinthians 11, we need to understand that Paul is saying that the way you support Christ, as a wife, is by supporting your husband. The way that you tend to Christ is by tending to the needs of your husband. Does that not revolutionize everything?

            So, what do we make of this part, “But, every women praying or prophesying with the head uncovered shames the head of her, for it is one and the same thing with the woman who has been shaved”? This might be an allusion to culture. It was tradition that the married woman would cover her hair, or keep it bound up when they were married. It was the sort of “wedding ring” in their day – that which identified them as married instead of single. Paul might be saying to not go against that, for it brings shame upon the husband. At the same time, if a woman cuts her hair short, like the prostitutes of their day, it also brings shame upon their husband. Now, what is necessary to note is that Paul asserts that the wife is the glory of her husband. It isn’t simply that the wife needs to respect her husband’s dignity, but that the wife is actually worth something and precious. The husband is found glorious because his wife, not because of his own doing per se. This might be a hint back to Proverbs 31, which is a reflection of the Bride of Christ.

            What should we say about modern times? Is it wrong for a woman to shave her head? Is it wrong for a woman to not cover her head? The context of this portion directed to wives is still under the pretense that “Christ is the head of all”. You come to your own conclusions on that.

            Now, here is where this little bit about the angels comes in. “Therefore a woman ought to have authority on the head because of the angels”. Some have taken this as meaning the nephilim. When God destroyed the earth in the flood, there is a strange passage in Genesis 6 about nephilim. People have concluded that angels came down from their heavenly abode to have sex with women and create giants on the earth. I don’t think so. I think that what Paul is saying her should be taken within the context of other things that he said to the Corinthians.

            By the time we come to 1 Corinthians 11, we’ve already read chapter 6. 1 Corinthians 6 is about lawsuits among believers. Paul asks, “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!” Did you not know that we will judge angels? The woman is told that should ought to have authority on the head because of the angels. Who is the head? The head is Christ. What is Paul saying? Women have authority in Christ. You have authority in the name of Jesus over the angels. This is necessary, because you are required to judge the angels. How can you judge them if you don’t have authority over them? Yet, what is the nature of this authority? This authority is most likely in reference to casting out demons and setting captives free.

            So the point of what Paul is saying is about what we do with our heads. If we cover them, we hide the glory of Christ in us. Thus, men are told not to allow their hair to become long enough to cover their face. Wives are told to be careful with what they do in relation to their head, because it is a reflection of how they treat their husband. If a wife mistreats their husband, they aren’t simply disgracing a man, but instead Christ. The assertion is made, then, that women are not left out of the authority in Christ, but instead Paul reassures that they do indeed have authority in Christ. It is not men over women, but instead men and women together. For, “neither woman separate from man, nor man separate from woman in [the] Lord, for as the woman from the man, so the man through the woman; but all things of God.”

The Father of All Comfort

            “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. For just as the sufferings of Christ flow into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort,” 2 Corinthians 1:3-7. The word comfort is used nine times in this passage. What exactly is implied by comfort? It is not pampering, for the idea of suffering is mentioned side by side with comfort seven times. This comfort might be likened to solace, or consolation. While it does not take away the pain or suffering, this comfort does give us the patient endurance necessary to continue onward.

            To think of God as the Father of compassion, the God of comfort, seems to truly help us in navigating what it means to be a father in our own lives. Noah got drunk, something I’m sure was not intentional. Yet, is it possible that God allowed this father to experience disgrace in order to give opportunity to the sons to cover their father’s sin with love? This might make a little more sense of why Noah had such a harsh rebuke to Ham. Maybe instead of showing the character that had been revealed by Noah on what it means to live a godly life, Ham displayed a character that was rampant before the flood. Instead of living in the righteousness that was taught and displayed by his father, Ham pursued the wickedness of the age.

            Fatherhood is about discipleship. It is about priestliness. We take up the sins of our sons upon our own shoulders. We bear their immaturity. We accept the shame and disgrace that they might bring in order to develop in them love and righteousness. As Paul told the Church in Corinth, “Follow me as I follow Christ.” In this statement we find fatherhood. To imitate Paul is to imitate Christ. God has brought this man into such a relationship with Him that you cannot separate the two. To see Paul is to see the Father – he and the Father are one. Because Paul has followed His rabbi – Jesus – and been brought unto the sonship of the Father, he is now equipped to go and call others unto the glory of being sons and daughters. No longer does Jesus look that we would be children, but brothers. To be the brother of Jesus is a statement of character, a statement of maturity. When we have been brought into the reality of maturity that we live like Christ lived, which is to say, we follow the Father’s example, we have thus been made sons and daughters, and not mere children, of God.

            In this we find God’s heart. God as Father means teaching His children to be like Him. Yet, in that it is not to make replicas, but rather to teach maturity and character. When we display the maturity and character of Christ, we are displaying the character of God the Father. That kind of character does not take us from being who we are, but interestingly calls us to fulfilling all that we are. God has called us to being the very people that He has called us to be, and that calling is predicated upon being free from everything that would cause us to live in a way that we are not. We are made in the image of God, and anything that would cause us to live in a skewed reflection of God is sin. If the Father has not revealed to you His character, then one might ask the question of whether we have truly come to Christ. To see Christ is to see the Father. They do not have two separate characters. The distinction made is their heart. The heart of the Father is directed to His children. The heart of the Son is directed to His Father, and in being directed to His Father, is also directed toward His brothers. The Spirit is the revelation of God in us. While Christ reveals the Father to us, God has given His Spirit to dwell within us. The heart of the Spirit is that we would rely upon Him in order to be brought into the image of Christ. The disposition of each member of the trinity is distinct, yet they all have the same character. To rely upon the Spirit is to be brought into the image of Christ, and to be conformed to the image of Christ is to display the Father to the world.

            God as Father is difficult for us to comprehend because we lack so heavily. The Father’s heart is never to promote Himself, nor to cause you to be Him. It is the heart of the Father that displays to us what true love is. “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” What does this verse tell us? It is telling us more than simply ‘God loves us and we need to believe in Jesus to be saved.’ God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Why did God give His Son? The reason that the Father gave His Son on our behalf is that we might also be adopted as sons and daughters – made coheirs with Christ. It is to bring many sons to glory. It is not simply so that we might make it to heaven, but instead that we might also display to the world the heart of the Father. Don’t forget that this same Son who was given told His disciples, “If any man desires to come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.”

            It is our calling as sons and daughters to be the sacrificial sons and daughters on behalf of the world. This is the heart of the Father: that the entire world would come to know Him. The way that this takes place is by our sacrifice – in living as Jesus lived, we point the way to God by imitating The Way. This is why we suffer. If we have been baptized into Christ, then we have been baptized into His death. What does this mean but that we will also taste of His sufferings? Yet, we know that if we partake in His sufferings, that we will be raised unto life by the same glory that raised Christ unto life. The same consolation that Christ received is given freely to us. This is fatherhood: to give even the most precious thing you have – your only begotten Son – in order to bring many sons unto glory.

The Words of the Prophets

The prophets are poets. When they speak, they don't pour forth a profusion of words. In such small statements, they make massive utterance. The prophet is gifted in oracular declaration, but more specifically, they are gifted with perception. It is the perception of the prophet that matters. What the prophet declares is the spiritual condition, no matter how contrary we might think, that prophet is speaking God's heart. This takes discernment. There are many false prophets that speak words that are glib. They are full of perversion and idolatry. With their words they speak peace and comfort, and with their lives they burn death and hellfire into the hearers.

How a prophet words something should be equally noted with the content. It is not just what they say, but also how they say it, and even what they don't say. When Ezekiel tells Israel and Judah that they have been adulterous with the other nations and have gone after those nations that have penises the sizes of horses that ejaculate like stags, the wording is purposeful. As vivid and explicit as this word might be - not to mention uncomfortable - that is exactly the point. We need to be uncomfortable when reading this. We need to let it sink in as disturbing and disgusting. God sees it as disturbing and disgusting, because when there is idolatry, there is sexual salacity.

For a prophet, the word given has an intention. It utterly devastates. All of our pomp and boastfulness for and about the Lord is both vainglorious and frightening. Nonplus is not the word to use. The Church in Laodicea professed to be rich, and had need of nothing, but God declared that they were wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked. The word came to show the false for what it is: false. It is not until after the false has been exposed, uprooted, destroyed, and cast away that the word can then come of how to rebuild and plant the authentic thing. Yet, if we are pusillanimous and childish, then that authentic thing will never come. The pulpiteers will drive out the prophet claiming that they are casting out demons by the prince of demons.

Now, if the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and the true apostles and prophets are being driven out of the congregation, what, then, does that mean for the Church? It says in Amos that there will be a famine for the word in the last day. Almost everyone quotes this, but have we truly wrestled with it? The lack of prophets has given us barrenness and lewdness. If we will not accept the testimony of the prophet when it comes, then we will necessarily be pressed further into apostasy.

Before the Nazi time in Germany, there were a few voices that rose up declaring the evils of their culture. They were flat out calling the eloquent society, even that morally pristine culture, pagan. Names that come to mind would be Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Whether these men were prophets, only God can say, but they did come with prophetic warning. The Church by and large not only rejected these men's warning, but even claimed that they are not a part of them - much like Jesus was said to have cast out demons by Beelzebub. It was the rejection of the prophetic warning that drove Germany into a state that would fill the gap with Nazism. An entire generation and culture were pushed into such depravity that they would strive to ethnically cleanse the world. It was a demonic spirit that possessed an entire nation.

The rejection of the prophetic word, spoken by the prophet, brings the people into apostasy. This is distinct from the prophetic gift. The prophetic gift might have predictive quality to it, and it might even speak for profound truth, but it is a gift. The Holy Spirit can speak prophetically through anyone, but the prophet alone is the mouthpiece of God. God invests into the prophet stature, character, and maturity. The man is the message, and the message is the man. The prophet speaks with words and life. This is why Hosea married Gomer, Ezekiel ate food cooked over feces, Isaiah walked around naked, Jeremiah buried his underwear, and why Zechariah took the "instruments of a foolish shepherd". They are the message. To reject the message is to reject the prophet. Yet, the rejection of the prophet is, as God told Samuel, a rejection of God.

Lets ask the final question: What does this have to do with us today? In one sense, it has much to do with those in the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement who practice little or no discernment in these matters. Yet, there is another aspect that I want to address. In October of last year, Grace To You Church hosted a conference called Strange Fire. John MacArthur then riled up his goons to proclaim how the Charismatics and Pentecostals are demonically possessed. They offer strange fire before the Lord, and God has rejected them. They then declared that God does not speak except for explicit speak through His Bible. If God is speaking to your heart through any outside source, cast that demon away - it isn't God. This also means that there are not any apostles or prophets today. Anyone who claims to be apostolic or prophetic is demon possessed.

People rallied with MacArthur against their Charismatic brethren. This is extremely dangerous. When you throw out an entire section of the Body of Christ because you believe they are in error, you have just performed the same sin that Germany's Church performed before the advent of Nazism. The old saying seems absolutely legitimate: it takes one to know one. A Christian cannot possibly be this arrogant, and if the person who is acting in this manner is in fact a Christian, then there are deeper areas of idolatry and sin than despising their brother. How many of us have listened to John MacArthur thinking that he is speaking truth? And yet, for that kind of spirit to come forth, it brings into serious question the validity of his testimony.

Please understand me. This is not a declaration that MacArthur is false, nor is it a statement to say that we need to call him demonic. I simply do not know him. But far be it from us to simply take such a blanket statement and not bring it into serious question. When our leaders - especially the ones who get a lot of attention - are willing to be that arrogant, there is a requirement upon the Body of Christ to write them. How can we possibly claim that we are lovers of truth and then ignore this? At the same time, when prominent leaders of the Charismatic Movement then make arrogant or stupid claims in the name of God, we need to be equally fervent to call them out on it. It was not until the Levites went through the whole of the camp killing family, friend, and acquaintance for the sin of the golden calf that the proclamation was made, "This day have you been consecrated to the Lord."

The Cross as Life

It has been difficult for me to comprehend the doctrine of the cross for a long time. What I mean by this needs a little introduction. I understand perfectly well the notion of dying to self. I understand perfectly well the crucified life. I understand perfectly well that we are new creatures. Yet, in that last statement I find my exact point: we are resurrected. The point of the cross, as I understand, is not simply to die, but that we would be raised up with Christ by the same glory that raised Him up. So, I've been confused about this for a while. How is it that Christ Jesus would say, "I came to give you life, and life abundantly", but then we want to say that we have to continue to die to self?

I've heard many times about the notion of dying to self. We take up our crosses so that God might raise us up. Yet, if you've been raised, then you've been raised. If your life is hid with Christ in God, then your life is hid with Christ in God. If you are crucified with Christ, it is no longer you that live but Christ that lives in you, then you are crucified with Christ. If you are a new creation, then you are no longer the old creation; you are now a new creation. Do you see my dilemma? In one sense, I understand full well that I need to die to the sinful passions of my old lifestyle, and thus be raised by the glory of God unto newness of life. I understand full well what it means to taste death and now be alive in Christ. But, once I'm alive in Christ, I can no longer die.

In Romans 6, Paul makes an interesting statement: "If we have been united with [Christ] like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection... that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died once and for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive in God in Christ Jesus."

Did you catch it? If you have died, and have been raised unto newness of life, then you cannot die again. This has an implication with the second death - the lake of fire. We know that because we have already died, we cannot die again. That old man has received its judgment, if you will allow me to say such things. Now, here is my confusion. If we have died and been raised unto life, then we can no longer die. Yet, it is told to us that we are to die daily, and that we are to continuously be giving our lives and dying to self. Just because you quote Paul's words that he dies daily doesn't necessitate the validity of the statement. This has perplexed me for quite sometime... until a couple days ago.

My wife and I have been looking through the seven churches mentioned in Revelation 2-3. While discussing the words of Jesus to these churches, it dawned on me what is going on with the cross here. Jesus said, "No one takes my life." He actually believed that. His life was taken by no one. Instead, He laid it down willingly. Now, when we talk about His life being laid down, what exactly are we talking about? I would like to suggest something rather profound. The "my" being used here might not refer to Christ in totality. Who Christ is, His essence, is found in His relationship with God the Father. Likewise, the true you, the true me, is not found in my body, but instead is something more than my body. The true Jesus could not die, because it was already alive to God. Though His body went into the grave, and though Jesus descended into the depths of the earth, the statement that Jesus is making is not about death like we think it is.

Let me try to explain a different way. Because Jesus was alive to God, He could not die. So, because He willingly gave His life, it was His to take it up again. The point of the cross in this sense is not about death, but about life. It isn't that Jesus is going to die, but that He will continue to live. Though He gives His own life, it is His to take up again. Why? Because Jesus had already passed from death to life. The reality of the cross was already at work in Him. The epochal moment of death on the cross was an ultimate climax of a succession of events that were all crosses before it. He had already died, and therefore He was already raised unto resurrection. Yet, the literal and bodily death and resurrection had not yet taken place.

Are you starting to see where I'm going here?

When we talk about dying and taking up our own crosses, what exactly are we talking about? There is a time and place to die to self and live unto God. There is a legitimacy to our phraseology of dying and being raised again. Yet, once you have passed from death to life, you no longer have to die again. You have already passed through unto eternity. You are already alive unto God. This is why Paul gets into Romans 7 and deals with our struggle with sin.

"Do you not know brothers... that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?"

Did you catch it? What is the point of Romans 6? WE ARE NO LONGER ALIVE TO SIN, BUT INSTEAD DEAD TO SIN. The whole point of Romans 7 is, then, to be understood as those who have not yet passed through death unto life. We might technically be saved, but we have not yet come unto the place of resurrection. One man said it this way: Many saved, few converted. Paul continues:

"So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might believe to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God."

Our life is hid with Christ in God. For they who have been raised unto this glory no longer face the death to self that is required of those who have not yet died. This is why later in Romans 7 Paul says, "As it is, it is no longer I myself who [sins], but it is sin living in me." And again, "Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." Why does Paul say this? Because the "me" being spoken of is not the same "me" that was put to death. The "me" that Paul is speaking of is the relation that I have with Christ. It is the new life. I am now alive to God, and that "me" cannot sin.

So, when we come back to our theology of the cross, we ask the question of what it means to die daily. The cross of Jesus was not about death, but instead about sacrifice. It was not about death, but instead servanthood. It was not about death, but instead selflessness. That which needed to die - the sinful man - had already died. Likewise, the cross that I bear daily is not a cross unto death that I might be resurrected. That has already happened. It is about me giving my life as a ransom for many. It is about me giving my life for my friends. Even if I descend into the deepest depths of the earth on their behalf, it is still my life to take back up. I am both priest and sacrifice, pouring myself out like a drink offering on behalf of my friends.

That is the cross as life. It doesn't diminish my life. It doesn't take away from who I am in God. It isn't about dying to self. It isn't even about dying to selfishness, because that selfishness has already died. It is about giving my life as a ransom for many. It is love covering a multitude of sins. It is me being merciful, so that through my mercy, they may obtain mercy. It is me being a living sacrifice. This theme is taken up through the whole of the book of Romans, and yet I've never heard anyone else proclaim it. I've heard others come close, but I can't say I've ever heard anyone who would speak this. I no longer live, but Christ in me. Therefore, when I lay down my life as a living sacrifice, it is not me dying - it is me obtaining even greater life. Because I lay down my life willingly, it is mine to take back up again - not because I am somehow on par with Christ, but because that kind of sacrifice is what attains unto eternal reward. It is the wisdom of the Kingdom: he who loses His life shall obtain life. How much greater life do we obtain when we willingly lay down our lives in apostolic priestliness for the benefit and glory of another?

Maybe this helps us to understand why Paul tells the Philippians, "...in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing." Again, he tells the Thessalonians, "For this reason, when I could stand it no longer, I sent to find out about your faith. I was afraid that in some way the tempter might have tempted you and our efforts might have been in vain." Paul has been a living sacrifice to these churches. Has this sacrifice been a waste? But, alas! In neither instance does it seem as though Paul concludes that it has. It is a labor of love - even my own death - because I know that God has already raised me up unto life. To die is to be with Christ. My cross that I bear is no longer one of death; it is now a cross of liberty. I am not forced to die upon this cross any longer, because I have already died upon it. I now walk according to the Sprit. But, that Spirit bids me back to the cross so that I might express the same love that Christ expressed on Calvary.

The cross is life for the believer, not because we constantly die to self, but because in the laying down of our life, others find life. This challenges me, but also excites me. I hope it has the same affect on you. May the Lord work this deeply in both of us that we might obtain life and meet in Zion.

Their Hearts on Pilgrimage

Every morning I read a Psalm as part of my morning devotion. Yesterday I read Psalm 84, for the 24th of November. This Psalm was written by the sons of Korah, the Levites (Numbers 26:58), about the dwelling place of God - Zion. In my reflection, I was absolutely captivated by the gates of this heavenly city that shall be manifest upon the earth, when the Son of God shall shine forth from Jerusalem unto the ends of the earth.

"How lovely is your dwelling place, O Lord Almighty! My soul years, even faints, for the courts of the Lord; my heart and my flesh cry out for the living God. Even the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may have her young - a place near your altar, O Lord Almighty, my King and my God. Blessed are those who dwell in your house; they are ever praising you."

My heart intuits the magnificence of these first verses. It causes my heart to soar. The beauty of the courts of my Lord are not beautiful because of the cedar wood, gold, gates of pearl, or any of the other precious stones mentioned in Revelations 21. Beauty is found in this city because God is there. It is the beauty of holiness - that very essence that causes the angels to stagger. Holiness is otherness. It is being set apart. Sanctification is about being less like the world we grew up in, and more like the God who has made us.

Zion is the place of absolute lordship of Jesus Christ, God's anointed King. Zion is the perfection of beauty - ascending the holy hill of God (Psalm 24) to usher in the King of Glory. It is the complete separation from oneself into the perfect and beautiful union with God. Entering His courts and coming to His altar is language of glory. Those that dwell in His house are blessed, because they are ever praising Him.

"Blessed are those whose strength is in you, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. As they pass through the Valley of Baca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with blessings. They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion."

Blessed are those who strength is in you, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. We are not of this world, even though we're in this world. We're ambassadors of heaven, searching for a city whose builder and maker is God. Of that city that Abraham sought, we're told in the next chapter in Hebrews, "Ye have come unto Zion." We're pilgrims, but we're not without home. Jerusalem is our happy home, dwelling above in freedom and beauty. It is at the right hand of the Father that Christ Jesus ascended to, putting out His hand to those saints that would by faith enter into His presence once and for all by His blood. We are seated with Christ in heavenly places, even while still being upon this earth.

Our strength is in God, and we move from strength to strength covering the world in showers of holy and spiritual blessings. Rivers of living water, which the Greek word can mean both living and flowing, flow out from our bellies to the ends of the earth - saturating the sons of men with the fragrance of heaven until each appears before God in Zion.

"Hear my prayer, O Lord God Almighty; listen to my, O God of Jacob. Look upon your shield, O God; look with favor on your anointed one. Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked. For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor; no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blameless. O Lord Almighty, blessed is the man who trusts in you."

In the midst of Zion, God and the Lamb sit upon their glorious throne to give light to all men. Better is one day in the midst of that light than 1000 anywhere else. Those who are blameless dwell there, for blamelessness marks those that are truly His. To be the people of this city, we remain in His love. And how do we remain in His love? We obey His commandments. And what are His commandments? We love one another. We lay our lives down, submitting one to another in love, and we support our brothers and sisters. We have kinship, which is the glory of unity.

How good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down Aaron's beard, down upon the collar of his robes. It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion. For there the Lord bestows his blessing, even life forevermore. Here in this holy city, God has established His priests forever. They rule and reign with Him, in unity to one another because they are in absolute unity with Christ Jesus.

This is the mystery of God worked out: Christ in you, the hope of glory. That precious mystery manifest in the very human beings that He has chosen and anointed with priestly anointing - not any longer an Aaronic priest draft, but instead all who call upon the name of the Lord - is the mystery of God that the holy prophets of old eagerly awaited. Now it is manifest in us, not only to us. For they that are of this city, their hearts are set on pilgrimage. They long and hunger after a perfect beauty. This unquenchable thirst and hunger cannot be satisfied by anything less than the coming of their Redeemer and the establishment of His Kingdom upon the face of the earth, where righteousness will be seen unto the ends of the earth.

Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you. See, the darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. Nations will come to our light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. This Bride of the Lamb lives in the light. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life. She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks. Her lamp goes not out at night. She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy. She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come. She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. Give this Bride the reward she has earned! Let her works bring her praise at the city gates!

Let our hearts thud with joy at this Bride who God is preparing for His Son. This Bride is His Church united with Israel. Regarding Israel and the Jews, "He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of a wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he guarded him as the pupil of his eye," Deuteronomy 32:10. Regarding the Gentile Church, "Now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations... Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household."

The love and adoration of Christ to His church are manifest in the words, "Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all." May Christ shine upon all of our hearts and bring us into this city. May he prepare us all for being that beautiful Bride that has no spot or wrinkle. Stir us afresh, O God, that our hearts might also pant for the living God.

The Most Important Thing

As I was praying last night, the memory passed through my mind of when I was very young in Christ. I was convinced that I was supposed to be a prophet. Mind you, I was only about 2 years old in the Lord, and very naive indeed. But I was convinced, and I was also convinced that others were being told that I'm supposed to be a prophet. So I would ask others, "What is my calling?" Some said they didn't know, and others said that I was called to be a prophet. It was exactly what I wanted to hear.

But it wasn't what I needed to hear.

In all honesty, I don't know that I can say one way or the other who God has called me to be. What I have learned is the most important thing: being you. What I needed to hear as a youth in Christ, one who was still carrying around  much baggage and speaking from the flesh, is that God has made me to be a very specific individual. Whether we're talking about apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, or teachers, their calling does not supersede who they already are. God has made you for who you are, and there shouldn't be anything else to tell you what that is.

When I was in school, I was bullied.

A lot.

It actually was something that was painful enough that I can't remember most of my childhood. I assume that my mind has actually blocked it out to keep from the pain. One of the very few things I do remember is at one point contemplating suicide. I felt absolutely worthless, and no one would care if I gave up my life. Then the people started going through my mind of who would care, my sister, my best friend... I couldn't do it.

What exactly is the most important thing? What is it that I know now that I didn't know then?

God has made me to be me.

There are certain aspects of who I am that I have put upon myself, whether good or bad. There are certain ways that I act and react, both being defense mechanisms. There are certain habits that I have created for myself. My likes, my dislikes, my personality, my habits, my opinions, and all other parts of who I am stem from something. It either stems from the core of my being, the essence of who I am, or it stems from my reaction to outside forces. The most important thing is to pull back the layers, however painful that may be, and look into the very heart. For anyone, whether Christian or otherwise, the most fulfilling thing that we can do is to live from the very center of who we are.

However, there is a catch 22 here. We cannot truly live from who we are, and who we were created to be, unless we are surrendered to Christ who made us. To live from that core, that center, we must be yielded to something stronger than that core or center. We are too weak to live out of our center alone. The result is what got us wherever we're at currently. The result of living as I knew how got me into alcohol, promiscuity, and rock n' roll culture.

Our callings do not replace the very essence of who we are. I would actually contend that the very core of our being is what defines our calling. Whether we're called to be a pastor, teacher, apostle, or some guy that sits on the park bench and comforts the man who called him at midnight asking for help, the most important thing is that we discover who we are and live from that. We are each a different member in a very large Body, and the beauty of holiness is found when we can be ourself in the midst of it. When we can function as we are intended to function, and we don't get picked on or run over by others who have 'better' callings, we are acting like the Body.

When I was young in Christ, I wanted to be a prophet because I saw the glits and glam of the so-called prophets. I saw the authority of the prophets in Scripture, and the relationship they had with God. But I did not see the suffering and the torment they endured. I didn't see anywhere close to the full picture. What I thought a prophet was at that time was only the 'good' things, and none of the 'bad'. That's why I wanted it. For my whole life I had been picked on and beaten down, and if I were a prophet, then I would be looked up to. I didn't realize that the prophets were also beaten and kicked.

God is unchanging. But why is He unchanging? It is one thing to make the assertion and say that He is God, therefore He doesn't change. It is quite different to see why. He doesn't change because He is free. Freedom is not defined by whether we are allowed to do something, or whether the option is available. I think in our Christianity we define freedom the same way we define freewill: to option to choose right or wrong, obedience or disobedience. Freedom is living from who you are. When there is nothing that hinders or restrains you, you are free. God is unchanging because He is free. He is who He is, and He lives from that essence of His being. He will never act outside of who He is, because that would be forfeiting His freedom. He is pure and incorruptible for the same reason that He is unchanging. These are all interwoven in a way to show you what freedom is all about. For us to find who we are in our essence, that we are made in God's image and have been designed by Him to live according to who He has created us to be, is the first step to ultimate freedom. Living out of the core of your being, that very core that governs everything about you, is freedom. To put something upon yourself that is not you, but only a reaction to the outside world, is bondage.

I would like to sum up with a challenge. How much of your life is lived from who you are? How much is lived from who you think you are supposed to be? How much is lived from the habits and reactions that you have placed upon yourself as a response to the outside world, but are not who you are? These things don't define you. There is a core that defines you and speaks as to why you act and react in these ways. It governs the decisions that you make. To live from that core of who you are, through the power of the Holy Spirit and the grace offered by the blood of Christ, is to find true freedom. Nothing else matters. If you run your life into the ground because you have been living from your center, it is well worth it. It is better to find yourself and live in poverty and isolation than to continue to live out a lie with many friends and many riches. I hope that this is something to bring the same freedom to the reader that I have found simply by pursuing this. I haven't arrived, but I praise God for the growth that has taken place simply for taking up the challenge.

Israel's Purpose and Destiny

I have previously posted the question, "Is Current Israel under Blessing or Curse?" In it, I explored what the Scripture has to say about Israel's final redemption. No, I do not believe that Israel has come to that final redemption, as mentioned in Amos 9, but that in no way would give us reason to oppose Israel or the Jewish people. In this post, I want to further the thought by asking what is Israel's ultimate purpose? I think that this might be a key component to better understanding both Scripture as well as our place as the Gentiles that have been grafted into (but not replaced) Israel.

There are four main roots that I think many of the modern day heresies and fads come from. When we readjust our perception of these four roots, everything else in Scripture seems to come alive. The four roots are an inadequate understanding of the Kingdom of God, the heart of God, the principalities and powers, and Israel’s purpose. God has given us a plumb line unto which everything else must measure up. If our understanding does not measure up to embrace all of Scripture, then the issue is not with our understanding. The issue lies at the foundation. That foundation is ultimately Christ. Yet, we come to more fully perceive Christ when we better understand the backdrop of the Old Testament, and we can better understand the progression of God's Scripture.

It is said in Zechariah 2:8 that “whoever touches you (Israel) touches the apple of my eye.” That Hebrew word translated ‘apple’ is more properly translated as the pupil of the eye. When we mess with Israel, even in our doctrine, we are poking fingers into the very pupil of the eye of God. He takes His covenant with Israel extremely seriously. I would even venture to say that if we don’t know Christ Jesus as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then we don’t have a solid understanding of Christ.

God’s purposes with Israel might be one of the most controversial subjects in Christendom. On the one side of the spectrum are they that teach the church has replaced Israel. On the other side are those that are so Zionist that you could not tell them that Israel is in error. In between these two opinions are many varieties of beliefs, almost none of them being biblical. Our approach to Israel as Christians seems to be based on one of two things: arrogance or sentimentality. We either have great arrogance in claiming they are cast aside and we have replaced them, or we have only the most questionable sentimentality. 

Those who have only sentimentality to Israel will not even consider the possibility of another exile. These are the same people that when you try to explain that they will be uprooted from the Land and we will take them in as refugees, they want to play the rapture card. “Well, you can stay if you want to, but I’m getting out of here!” This kind of statement really shows precisely how loveless and non-biblical so many ‘saints’ truly are. Though they have the Bible and every possibility to reason and understand and love, they instead choose convenience.

We don’t get to choose whether we stay or we go. Either we will all stay, or we will all go. The question that truly needs to be asked is our willingness to stay through the Tribulation. Are we willing to endure suffering at the hands of men – possibly even Jewish men – for the glory and purposes of God? Are we willing to, for love’s sake, put ourselves in a place of danger? If the answer to those questions is no, then there is absolutely no amount of reasoning that I can perform to convince you of God’s eternal plans and our place in those plans. But for those that are willing to lay down their lives and live in a manner that would display love and truth to an entire nation, there is still hope that we might be able to come to reasonable conclusions together.

Nothing more shows the core of who God is than His plans concerning Israel. Some have called this ‘the mystery of Israel.’ I’m not sure that Israel’s role in eschatology is a part of that mystery, as some claim, but instead the mystery is simply found in the scandal of a God that would choose one nation over all others. When we can understand that mystery, it makes a lot more sense as to why God would use words like, “election.” Election doesn’t necessarily have only to do with ‘national Israel.’ It has to do with the people of God, foreknown from before the beginning of time. During the Millennial reign of Christ, and during the New Heaven and New Earth, there appear to be a people that are outside of that choosing, yet are not destroyed in the Judgment of Christ.

This issue is the issue of nations. God doesn’t destroy all nations. Nor does He cast all people into the lake of fire. There are those nations and people that do indeed get cast into the lake of fire, but how can we reconcile the notion of a people outside of election that are still able to come up and worship God? This is part of the mystery. It comes down to a few subjects that we’ll look at: covenant, centrality of Israel, and God’s nation. These three factors help us to better understand what it is that we’re looking at.

Covenant

God has revealed His covenant progressively. The first statement of it is in Genesis 3:15 – that a man will rise from the seed of the woman to crush the serpent’s head. From that initial statement, we don’t really gather a whole lot of information. We certainly don’t gather a bunch of messianic prophecy about a “greater than David” and how the messiah must be a priest and a king, and how Jesus will come twice, etc. Actually, the covenant made with Israel unfolds. It starts with a promise of a man to come that will crush a serpent’s head, and then eventually evolves into an eternal covenant that will be the redemption of all of creation.

I have absolutely no problem with saying that God had foreordained such a plan of salvation. We just don’t find the full statement and revelation of such a cosmic plan at the inception of Genesis. It progresses from that first statement to a promise that Canaan will be a slave to Japheth and Shem, and that Japheth will enter the tents of Shem (Genesis 9:25-27). It is after the incident at Babel, in the plains of Shinar, that God calls a man out of all nations in order to bless all nations (Genesis 12:3). That covenant is reiterated to Abram in Genesis 15:1-21, but the details are added that Abram’s offspring will inherit the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. That promise has yet to be fulfilled.

Now, before we go forward in the progression, lets deal with an issue. Paul quotes the promise given to Abraham. He mention that the word used for seed is singular, and not plural. This is a hint of one single man, Christ, that would be the seed of Abraham. We cannot take this knowledge and trade it for the whole progression of Scripture, though. The Jewish people today can equally claim that the wording represents Isaac, and not Ishmael. Yes, there is something to this, but no, the promise of Abraham was not solely for Christ. That is not to say that those with Jacob’s blood in them are saved according to the flesh. What it is saying is that we need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Once again, the statement of “through your seed” is given in Genesis 22:18. The context of the statement is in God’s provision of the lamb instead of Isaac as sacrifice. When we take this to mean that Israel has been replaced, we err in being terrible exegetes of Scripture. The statement is still resonating the fact that “God will provide a Lamb.” This is actually the heart of the covenant. From before Israel, and before Abraham, God established this covenant. It is an eternal covenant about a God that provides a Lamb.

The covenant is an eternal covenant. The eternal covenant is not solely with Israel, but with all nations. God has chosen a specific people for Him to put His name upon, and all other nations must come unto them in order to worship the Lord. The covenant unfolds throughout the Scripture gaining more and more detail, until finally it culminates in the man Christ Jesus – the true Israel and firstfruit from the dead. When Israel was given the promises of being called the firstborn of God (Exodus 4:22), we find the New Testament writers referring to Jesus as God’s only begotten Son.

How is it that God can make a statement about Israel being His son, but then that title is given exclusively to Jesus in the New Testament? It comes down to the mystery of Israel, which is the mystery of Christ. In the book of Isaiah from chapter 40 onward for about 15 chapters we read about a servant of the Lord. This servant is the Messiah in some places, but is clearly spoken of as Israel in other places. What is being communicated is: As with Israel, so with Messiah; as with Messiah, so with Israel. The Gospel of Matthew also communicates this.

We find in Matthew the “prophecy” that, “Out of Egypt I call my son…” Read Hosea. That isn’t a prophecy; it is a statement. The statement isn’t even a messianic statement. It is referring to Israel being delivered from the hand of Pharaoh. How can Matthew make such a big blunder? As with Israel, so with Messiah. The Gospel of Matthew continues that theme all the way through. Jesus comes out of Egypt, gets baptized in the Jordan (symbolic of Israel crossing the Red Sea), and is led into the wilderness for 40 days (Israel wandering for 40 years). At the beginning of Matthew 5, Jesus goes up onto a “mountain” to speak to His followers. This is reminiscent of Moses upon Mount Sinai.

The corporate Israel is made manifest in the man Jesus Christ. He is the true Israel that fulfilled all of the purposes of Israel. However, there is a flip side to that coin: as with Messiah, so with Israel. As Jesus fulfilled perfectly all of the commands of the Lord concerning Israel, so too must Israel do. God awaits a time reserved when He will establish His King upon the earth for 1000 years that Israel will finally come into her purpose: to be a corporate demonstration of Jesus. As the Body of Christ, we have this mandate. We have this mandate to be Jesus unto the Jewish people. They will have the mandate to be Jesus unto the nations, for “You will be a Kingdom of priests, and a holy nation,” Exodus 19:6.

Though the covenant was progressively revealed through the Old Testament, it was ever and always the eternal covenant (Jesus slain before the foundation of the world). Israel rejected that covenant at Sinai, and placed Moses as their mediator in exchange for personal relationship of God. Because of that exchange, the nation forfeited for a season their call to be the priestly nation as God had intended. This is why the prophets call the eternal covenant “a new thing” and “a new covenant.” It isn’t so much that it is a “new covenant” as it is the eternal covenant rejected at Sinai. Instead, they embraced a covenant that could be performed. This is why it is said by the religious leaders of that new wine, “The old is good enough,” Luke 5:39.

It is according to the covenant made with God at Sinai that Israel’s destiny hinges upon. God still holds them accountable to that covenant, though the Gentiles have not been placed under such a covenant. It is said in Deuteronomy 4:1, “Follow them (the decrees and laws) so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land…” Israel has been given the land promised to Abraham, but not that full amount promised in Genesis 15:18. That Land is to be inherited only. Israel cannot come into possession of that Land by coercion or military power. Because the Land must be inherited, for Israel to remain in that Land they must remain faithful to the Lord their God. If they don’t remain faithful, they don’t remain in the Land.

It was said in Deuteronomy 6:25 that the obedience to the Law is considered their righteousness. Where Paul has said that we cannot be saved through works, God seems to be indicating that they can be saved by works. However, Paul is actually expressing the fullness of this text. It is not the works of the Law that make them righteous, but the faith behind those works. In remaining faithful to God, which is to continue to put their faith and confidence in Him throughout all generations, their works are considered righteous. This is why God continues by saying, “See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse – the blessing if you obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the Lord your God,” Deuteronomy 11:26-28.

The blessing does not come when Israel upholds the Law, but when they live by faith. The curse does not come with disobedience to the Law, but when they reject the Lord their God. The two are connected in a way that cannot be separated. Ultimately, Christ is the fulfillment of the Law. He is our offering and sacrifice. He was the anointed unleavened bread of Truth to be offered as our meal offering. He is our peace offering – that through Him we have peace with God. He is our sin offering, that if we sin, we have propitiation (1 John 2:1). He is our Passover Lamb. He is the drink offering, of which we can take and say, “This is His blood…” He is the fulfillment of the 613 laws outside of the Ten Commandments, including the dietary laws. It is in Christ and through Christ - specifically faith in Him that leads to good works (James 2:14-24) - that we, and Israel, are to keep the Law.

The Law is not something that is a burden to fulfill as believers because Christ is our fulfillment. It is apart from faith in Christ that the Law becomes impossible. This is the eternal covenant. We have stepped into this reality as Christians – something that Israel has yet to do nationally. That is why the command is given through Paul that we are to “drive the Jew to jealousy,” Romans 11:11. This is almost a parallel of the statement made by Moses, “I will make you envious by a people that are not a people; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding,” Deuteronomy 32:21.

How is it that Gentiles, they that were despised by the Jews, are the ones to live in the promises and blessings given to them? It is a Divine revelation of the character of God. He will go that far, to cut off the natural branches and engraft wild branches, in order to call the nation of Israel to repentance. While we’ve been content to live beneath the glory of God, Israel continues to be unmoved and not jealous. God has established the covenant with Israel so that He might use them as a nation to all the other nations. Our call is to be a people that are no people – a pariah.

By being slapdash saints we rob God. Our purpose and calling is to be nobodies. But we have the same complex that Israel had: we want to be like all the other nations. We want to be somebodies. Are you willing to take up the purposes of God for the sake of a greater reward in the next life? This cuts to the heart of every grumbling. We don’t expect to be somebody. Instead, we are content in all things. It is for the lack of understanding this mystery that even the church has been quite flabby. We are unchallenged and bored.

What might actually be the solution is the very thing we have refused to consider: we are to be a priesthood to Israel so that they might be a priesthood to the nations. Instead of embracing this calling, we have coveted their calling. We want to be the big dogs. Maybe the parable of Jesus speaking of the prodigal son is more literally true than we know. The elder brother that has always been with the father says, “I have slaved in your household for all these years…” He refuses to celebrate with the father because he thinks he is lacking in reward for his “enslavement.” Who among us are exact replicas of that elder brother? Who among us don’t want to even consider playing second fiddle, even though we’re of Japheth, the elder? Is not all righteousness performed in submitting as the elder under the younger? Has God not said that the least shall be the greatest?

Center of nations

Ezekiel 5:5 says, “This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her.” I believe that the King James translates it as “set in the midst…” The Hebrew word speaks of “the middle.” Why is it that preachers insist on the ‘fact’ that “God’s not interested in real estate?” That isn’t what God says. He is very interested in this particular Land. He has even established that it should be the center of all nations. This is the pupil of God’s eye, at the center of all nations, to be a priestly nation to the nations.

God has chosen a specific place (Zion) for His rule. The classic chapter for blessings and curses, Deuteronomy 28, begins with the verse, “The Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.” From there, it is reaffirmed that “the Lord will make you the head, and not the tail,” Deuteronomy 28:13. These are promises of God, and the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). Deuteronomy 32:8-9 doesn’t just imply, but blatantly states, “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is His people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.”

I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard this expounded. The very statement itself seems to drive something deep within me to repulsion. Would God be that specific? Would He truly set up the boundaries of the nations according to the sons of Israel? What does that even mean? It has been decreed that God would make Israel a priesthood. They are to show the nations the ways of the Lord. They are to separate the precious from the vile. It has been said in the prophets, and it is true unto this day, “Like priest, like people.” When Israel is disobedient to their God, the nations are disobedient and do not consider.

For God to redeem Israel is for Him to redeem the nations. There is something interwoven between Israel and the nations that shouldn’t be lightly disregarded. The way that Israel acts and interacts with the nations actually affects those nations. When she is a whore, the nations blaspheme the name of God. This is why it says in Ezekiel over and over that Israel has “blasphemed my name.” Even if there is not a technical blaspheming of God’s name by Israel, the very fact that they are causing the nations to blaspheme Him is likened unto the same thing in God’s sight.

We looked earlier at how Israel is called God's firstborn in Exodus 4, and then the New Testament exclusively gives that title to Jesus. I want to give a thought for consideration. This is not a "thus saith the Lord," but only an inclination. I am coming more to being convinced that Israel is God's firstborn son as a nation. Christ is the God-Man. He is also the Israel-Man. We find in Christ Jesus the fullness of God, but also the fullness of who Israel is called to be. But in regard to the nations, and not simply individuals, God still calls Israel His firstborn son. When that nation has come unto salvation in Christ Jesus, and they are walking out their calling of being the priestly nation, all other nations, as nations, must look to Israel as their mediator. We have Christ as our mediator, and I don't want to speak something against that. But as nations, and not mere individuals, the nations cannot come to God without Israel being their mediator to God. Israel will fulfill the position of mediator through the redemption of Christ Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is part of the marriage of the Lamb. "The two become one flesh." When there is that kind of unity of deity and humanity found in Israel, and the Church alongside her, the Bride of Christ is promoted (exalted) to ruling and reigning alongside of Christ - not under Him, but beside Him.

I don’t know that I have fully come to understand and appreciate what God has communicated in these quoted verses. There are too many possibilities for me to grasp what God has in store. Whatever is being communicated in God establishing Israel as the center of all nations, it is at the heart of Israel’s primary purpose. When we can come to understand that mystery, we have come to understand the whole of eschatology. So much is stored away hidden in God that we cannot begin to even fathom what this seed will blossom into. The mystery of Israel is the mystery of Christ. As Christ, so also Israel. The impact of that statement alone can give us depth and insight beyond what I’m personally able to communicate.

God’s nation among nations

To conclude, Israel’s purpose is to be God’s nation among all nations. Just as Satan has taken his pick and placed his name upon Babylon, God has called out one man from all nations to make him a nation. This is not simply a political state. When God gathers Israel the final time, He will gather all Israel. Any and all of the Jews that are scattered abroad will be brought back to that Land. It is more than a political state – it is God’s nation and statement.

This has a few implications: priesthood, theocracy, display of God’s character, and His witness unto the four corners of the earth. In this is the summary of Israel’s call. Books and volumes can be written on those subjects alone to further understand the depth and magnanimity of God’s calling. “For you are a people holy unto the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession,” Deuteronomy 7:6. “Listen to me my people; hear me, my nation,” Isaiah 51:4.

“Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?” Deuteronomy 4:34. God has chosen this particular people above every other people. In order for us to even come into the faith we must be grafted into that root (Romans 11:11-25). God is jealous over Israel, and if we are to bear His name, we also must be jealous over Israel.

Prudent Speech

Do you see a man hasty in his words?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.
Proverbs 29:20


There are a select few that are sagacious with their words. Many of us pour out of our mouths streams of words. Many people have the gift of gab - the ability to speak on any subject. Once you start a conversation with them, they can carry it for days. Some don't have this gift, but still practice lingual negligence. We speak when we need to shut up. We don't speak when we need to scream. We put forth a plethora of words, many times without even thinking before about what is coming out of our mouths. How many of us are guilty of this?

Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Christ Jesus was one that never minced words. In fact, by His own lips He said that His words are life because they are Spirit. He actually claimed that He says nothing out of His own mind, but everything comes from the Spirit of God. Then, at another time, Jesus said that we would be judged by every idle word that comes out of our mouths. Have you ever doted upon that? Mete on it for a moment. Every idle word... What about the words that are not idle? What about the words that are premeditated? I think the point is being made: every word, whether we think about what we're saying or not.

If Jesus was one that would not speak a single word without its inception being from the Spirit of God, what then shall we say of ourselves? Paul said that he desired to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified. What shall we say of ourselves, who are not the Son of God nor apostles? We don't have such a caliber of character as they, and yet we find even they are making statements about a choosing of their words and understanding. If Paul desired to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified, what then must his words have been enriched in?

The art of prudence is lost to our generation. We often don't think about the future, let alone act according to that thought. Of the famous music on the radio currently, we hear song after song about not thinking about what happens next. Let's worry about that when it comes, for now we want to party all night and sex it up until our bodies explode from erotic bacchanal. If our actions are so unpremeditated and without intuition, how many of our words are the same?

Jesus had said that out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. That, of course, supposes that our hearts are overflowing. But what is it overflowing with? We simply need to check out our words to know the answer to that. Think back on the past conversations that you've had. Think back upon the arguments or the reactions that you've had. What comes out from your mouth - whether in the good or the bad moments? How much was simply verbiage to fill the air, or make your point, or show how the person that you're speaking with is wrong? How much was the weighty overflow of the Spirit of God that brings a glory out of your lips?

Out of the overflow of your heart, your mouth speaks. I'm becoming acutely aware of the need to speak less, yet in those fewer words speak much more. There are a few that I know that when they speak, it is some of the most precious words that you've ever heart. And when they listen to you speaking, they actually listen. There isn't the hope of listening so they can respond. There isn't the hope of listening so that they can then tell you their opinion. They actually listen. Why?

They listen to you because they themselves are more accustomed to not speaking unless they have something to say. When you have others around you that are in like manner, then when someone speaks up, why wouldn't you listen? This is the very heart and soul of the person. To listen to the words of what a man or woman speaks is to listen to the very heart of that person. When their heart is given over to vanity, their words will reflect it. But there is a glory that comes when we "desire to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified."

I'm striving for the latter. Many times I find myself listening to sermons, watching movies, talking to people, and I just want them to get to the point. They spend an hour talking, and yet there is barely anything said. The void isn't filled simply because we've spoken. I know some that can speak for five minutes and say more than those that get up on Sunday morning and speak for an hour. The biggest need in our day is not to teach people more information about the Bible and the Gospel. The people aren't 'over-gospeled.' They are actually under-gospeled. Our words aren't weighty enough because we haven't spent enough time listening to the Spirit and not speaking until that word is birthed in our heart out of the waiting.