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. 

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.

It's not Good to be Alone

18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

23 And Adam said:

“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

In Genesis 2:18, we find the first mention of "not good." Throughout the entirety of Genesis 1, we read about the first day, and God says it is good. The second day, God says it is good. The third day, God says it is good. All the way through to the seventh day, God says, "It is very good." Now we reach the first time that God says, "It is not good..." Isn't it fascinating that the first thing God says is not good is loneliness? 

Notice that God does not say it is sin. It is not sin to be alone, or to feel alone. Loneliness is something that we have all experienced at some time. The Hebrew word is bad (bawd). It has the implication of a branch severed from the tree, a body part disconnected. This is not mere isolation, but a disconnect from the whole. 

God's response to this loneliness is to "make a helper." The Hebrew word is etser, which comes from the root atsar - to surround. Etser means "one who helps," but seems like the implications are companionship and camaraderie, not service or assistance. It is also more than someone to talk to and be around. This suitable helper is supposed to be one that can come alongside and fill out the areas in life that are incomplete. 

We have in verses 19-20 the scene of Adam naming the animals. This has two implications. First, it implies hierarchy. Adam was "over" the animals in that he names them; they don't name themselves. In Daniel 1, Daniel and his three companions are given new names. The king of Babylon does this to show he has ownership over those young men. He named them; he owns them. The second implication is found in what a name represents. The Hebrew word shem (pronounced shame) means character. Adam would have deeply searched the soul of those animals to name them precisely as they are. Their name is the essence of their being. It takes intimacy with that other being in order to name them. You have to know them in their deeps and see what the animal truly is.

We come to verse 21 and God puts Adam in a deep sleep. The Hebrew word is tardemah. It means a trance, or a deep sleep (as if dead). The Greek equivalent is used in Revelation 1 when John sees Jesus and falls down before Him as if dead. Daniel sees a vision in Daniel 10, and falls down on his face into a "deep sleep." This is the same thing. It's the idea of being unconscious or in a coma or something. It makes me think of Paul when he said, "Whether in the body or out of the body, I don't know..." 

This idea of Adam being brought into a deep unconscious slumber, as if dead, is all the more amplified by the verb in the following phrase. Yashen means physical relaxation/being languid, but figuratively implies death. God took a rib out of Adam and from that rib made a woman. She was called such because when Adam awoke, he said, "Woah, man..." (That was a pathetic attempt at a joke). 

In the wording, "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh," we actually have an idiom. To understand what this means, it is actually a comparison of bone and flesh. Whereas bone is hard, flesh is soft. Where I am weak, she is strong, but where I am strong, she is weak. We complete one another. This is the helper that Adam needed. This is the kind of relationship that was needed in order to not be "alone." In the case of Adam, it was a wife that was necessary. In the case of many people in our world today, it is not necessarily a wife or a husband. The implications of what it means for them to be a wife or husband is found prominently in the next couple verses.

Before we get to that point, lets further investigate this scene. The Hebrew for rib is tselath. It means side, but can be used in anatomy, architecture, or figuratively. Depending on the context, we would call it a beam, side, rib, plank, etc. It comes from the Hebrew tsala, which means "to limp." Tsala is used in Genesis 32:22-32 when Jacob wrestled the angel and walked away limping. For Adam to be put into a deep sleep, as though dead, and then a rib taken from his side, we're looking at a metaphor for resurrection. Just as Jacob transformed from Jacob to Israel, so Adam is transforming from man to humanity. It was male and female - He made them in God's image. There is something about man and woman uniting to bring forth the image of God.

The Hebrew for woman is ishah; the Hebrew for man being ish. The woman has a hey at the end of ishah. The man has a yod in the middle of ish. When you bring together the yod with the hey, you have yah, which is the name of God. To be truly united, we bring Christ in us to one another, the God that He invested inside of you. When I as a male bring the image of God in me to my wife, and she brings the image of God in her to me, we make a complete yah, and therefore have a three chord strand that is not easily broken. 

To build a relationship upon Christ instead of upon "I love her" is completely different. Notice in verse 23 that Adam never named the woman. There isn't a hierarchy. Adam is not over the woman. Paul notes that the woman was created for man, not visa versa. What's going on here? Paul cannot be saying that man is over the woman. Thus, it must mean that woman is to serve God with man, not as a lesser, but not alone either. The reason for this is because of what I've already mentioned the "bone of my bone" idiom stands for. In the ways of God, He has purposed that woman should serve Him alongside of man. We'll dive into this a little more deeply in a minute.

The word for one used in verse 24 is echad. Echad is used many times in the Old Testament to mean one. It does not mean a multiplicity of ones. I've heard the argument that it is like one bundle of sticks compared to one stick. The truth is, echad would be used to describe both the bundle as well as the single stick. But here is what we do know: Adam and Eve would not have ended up somehow mutating together to become one being. They were still two distinct entities: male and female. Never does Adam become one with Eve in the sense of a merging of the flesh to become one person instead of two. So echad, even though it means one, is being used figuratively to make a point.

When we read in the shema, we read that the word echad is used at the end (the Lord your God is one). Jesus prayed in John 17:21 that we would be one as He and the Father are one. In Ephesians 5:31-32, Paul says that this is a mystery that is speaking of Christ and His Church. The very words in Genesis 2:24 are somehow now being related to Christ and His Church. 

I said previously that for Adam, the loneliness was cured by a wife. But for we in the twenty first century, it isn't necessarily marriage that cures loneliness. It comes from two sources, both being related inseparably. We are to be married to Christ, which is to say that we are to be one with Christ. That sounds nice and all, but what does that look like and actually mean? The ironic thing is that this is where the second implication comes in. To be one with Christ is to be one with one another. When we are willing to be intimate with one another, to the degree that you cannot tell where the one begins and the other ends, we are now being united with Christ.

It is beholding in one another's faces that we move from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). We're given a clue in Genesis 2:25 as to what it would mean to be one with one another. They were naked and felt no shame. Nakedness is not simply stripping down. There is a stripping that is not of clothing. There is a nakedness that does not involve nudity. Nakedness is transparency. We read in James 5:16 to confess our faults one to another and to pray for one another. Paul says to carry each other's burdens, for when one part of the Body hurts, the whole Body hurts. That kind of openness of confession to one another, and that kind of love to pray for one another instead of lording over one another is completely other worldly. 

In openness and honesty and nakedness, there was no shame for faults and failures. In all things, man was innocent. Could you imagine what it would be like to be that kind of person to someone else? Are you able to conceive what it would mean to be able to unload your heart to someone, and instead of judging or condemning, they embrace you and say with heartfelt tears, "Me too?" We've all failed in one place, and even if I've never committed adultery, I'm no better than the one who has. I've done things that the adulterer or murderer would never conceive of. The visions in my mind sometimes are so perverted and evil that to confess it would be to expose myself. I'm not a good person.

Yet, it is in the midst of that kind of relationship to one another that we find healing and freedom. We find healing from our sins, and we find innocence because we're not looking to hide or deceive. To be united one to another, so that we are no longer male and female, Jew or Gentile, black or white, slave or free, but are all one in Christ requires that we would be transparent before one another. The cure to loneliness is not to be around other people. The cure to loneliness is confession.

When we're united to a Body of believers that is naked before one another, shame is not felt. Adam and Eve were naked and felt no shame. This kind of innocence has been lost to us, but we can understand it and be a part of it through Christ. Honesty and transparency is being more naked than nudity would require. We don't like the idea of being that open and bare. We like to clothe ourselves and hide behind our fig leaves. It takes the Spirit of Christ itself to even get us to consider opening up and being real. 

The heck of it is that to be united to the Body here and now is actually more than just being united to the Body here and now. There is an unbroken continuum of saints that stretch back to Adam being a son of God, Abel offering a sacrifice that God accepted, Seth's descendants being the first mention of "At that time men began to call upon the name of the Lord", Enoch entering into eternity by faith, and all the other amazing saints that we're in line with throughout all ages. This is called the invisible cloud of witnesses. 

We are interwoven with this invisible cloud. Even when you feel alone, you are not alone. The others that have gone before you are ever and always about you. When we enter into the Body of Christ, we enter an eternal Body that spans from everlasting to everlasting. Before the foundations of the world, Jesus was the eternal Son of God. To enter into His Body is to enter into Him. To enter into Him is to enter into the Triune God. As the Bride of Christ, we are more than human. Divinity and humanity have been married, and in being united one to another, we are actually a fourth aspect of the Godhead. That isn't to say that we are divine as individuals, but to say that the marrying of Israel and the Church, Spirit and flesh, Heaven and Earth, and God and man brings us into an exalted place. We are somehow more than human, and even exalted above the angels, but not on par with Christ.

Just as the woman was created to serve God alongside of man, the Bride of Christ is to rule and reign alongside of Christ. The woman is not less than man, nor is she under man. She is not to be "ruled over", nor is she to be the head of the house. There is no "head" but Christ. When man and woman have been made equal and serve God together - one alongside of the other - we are displaying a mystery of how God has made the Bride to rule and reign with Christ in equality to Christ, and not in subjectivity or "underneath" Christ. 

Oh the depths and riches of our God! The tender mercies that would make man a little lower than the angels, but to be raised up unto Him as Sons and Daughters - co-heirs with Christ. Who is like the Lord? And who has been His counselor? To Him be glory in the Bride, forever and ever, amen.

When Darkness is Upon the Face of the Deep - Genesis 2:16-17

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”


In these two trees, we have the whole of the Gospel. Before looking at these two trees and what they symbolize, I would like to go back and take another look at Genesis 1:2. "Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God hovered over the waters." What we have in Genesis 1:2 is a chiastic structure. A chiastic structure is a form in literature where two things are being compared to one another. In the case of Genesis 1:2, we have the face of the deep being compared with the waters, and the darkness being compared with the ruach (Spirit). The question to ask is this: are they being likened to one another, or opposites?

Simple logic would say that the deeps are being likened to the waters, therefore the darkness is being likened to the Spirit of God. Now, lets take a moment and break down this Hebrew phrase ruach elohim merachepheth. The verb is merachepheth. It is a piel participle of rachaph. Rachaph means to relax, the piel conjugation simply meaning that we intensify the verb. This particular verb is only found in the piel participle one other time in Scripture: Deuteronomy 32:11. "Like an eagle that stirs up its nest and hovers over its young, that spreads its wings to catch them and carries them on its pinions..." Notice here that the verb is being compared with a stirring up of the young.

The verb, scholars say, denotes an intense vibration. However, lets not lose the fact that it comes from the root rachaph, which means "to relax." There is something about the Spirit of God being at rest that caused for an intense vibration. My question is this: what was vibrating? Is it possible that the vibrations weren't from the Spirit, but instead from the creation? Obviously the verb is supposed to be describing the Spirit, but what if this is a better description of what the Hebrew word ruach is? Ruach is used in relationship to God, and only God. It is His Spirit, but it is sometimes translated as breath or wind. This movement of air, whether by breath or wind, might actually give us a clue.

I find it much more satisfying to translate this passage as "the Divine Essence (Spirit) stirred up the waters." Now, I want you to remember the whole verse. "Darkness was upon the face of the deep." So, what is being compared is still the Spirit with darkness. That isn't to say that God is darkness, but to say that there is a positive relationship between God and darkness. I think we've all felt formlessness, emptiness, and darkness. We've all felt the sensation of, "If God exists, then why would He allow this?"

It is precisely in those moments that we find the "Spirit stirs up the creation." What is being spoken here is an intense poetry. Every Christian can give their testimony of how God has helped them through even the darkest and most chaotic moments in life. This is the positive relationship between God and darkness. Even though He cloaks Himself in darkness, and speaks out of the cloud of thick darkness, He doesn't leave us there without stirring up those deeps and saying from the inside out, "Let there be..."

Now, when we get to Genesis 2:16-17, we need to keep in mind that those two trees represent the two opposites mentioned in Genesis 1:2. Though darkness and the Spirit are being likened to one another, God is still light. In Him there is no darkness. In order for God to have fellowship with His creation, He has had to clothe Himself in darkness. We cannot see Him in full unadulterated splendor and live. But the darkness is not permanent. In Revelation 21-22, we find that there is no darkness. So there is a glory still to come where we will see God as He is, and we will not be harmed.

These two trees represent the clash between choosing to serve in that final Kingdom without darkness, and desiring to have our own thoughts and opinions outside of God. To take of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to say, "I can decide this on my own. I have freewill, and God gave me a good enough mind to come to my own conclusions." At the center of what these two trees represent, we find the heart of all of our disputes in Christendom. Do we come to conclusions because of philosophy, intellect, or some other form? Or do we wait until Divine inspiration inserts the correct understanding into our hearts?

I know a lot of information. I have a good understanding of what the Bible says. But I could not tell you what my opinion is on whether we ought to follow the Law. My wife tells me all the time what it means to observe the Law, and how much we're required to keep, and that if I really want to know, I should just look to the words of Jesus. But there is a difference between mental ascent and revelation. I can mentally go through the doctrine and Scriptures and come to a pretty good conclusion. In fact, I have done that. But there is knowing and knowing. There is taking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and thus having an opinion and an understanding. Then there is taking of the tree of life, and because of the revelation of Christ, I am changed in the deepest parts of who I am.

What is it that you are content with? Are you content with a knowledge simply because you took a class, got a degree, studied it out for yourself, etc? Or is there something in you that says "deep calls unto deep," and until I know deeply, I don't truly know? This one thing alone will actually set you free from almost every deception. There is a phrase in the New Testament that actually expresses this concept perfectly: "A love of the truth." In 2 Thessalonians 2:10, we read that the only thing to keep us from deception and strong delusion is a love of the truth. That love is something deeper than a respect. We don't subscribe to doctrines, but desire the reality in the inner parts of who we are.

These two trees are two value systems. What do you desire more? Do you desire intimacy with God, or knowledge about God? Do you desire life or knowledge? The latter will come, but it only comes when God has shared His knowledge. If God doesn't share, and instead hides from us this or that understanding, we don't go to seek understanding on our own, but we rest in the fact that we aren't required to at this time know and understand. When that serpent comes to say, "I know something you don't know!" we respond with, "So?"

It isn't for me to know everything, and I thank God for it. The darkness upon the face of the deep is something that is difficult to wade through, but I'm not alone. I might not understand it now, but when I get through it, I'll be able to look back and see that God has been redeeming every moment.

What is Divine Inspiration?

I've been challenged to provide a definition of inspiration. Words have meaning. Therefore, it behooves us to come to terms seeking to understand what that term means. To place upon a word our own interpretation of that word is both disservice and dangerous. The most extreme case to point to would be Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Both Hitler and Stalin redefined what it meant to be a person. Because they redefined what it means to be a person anyone who does not add up to that definition is then less than human - subhuman. Subhumanity is dispensable, so can we truly say that the annihilation of 6,000,000 Jewish people is really that terrible? You get my point.

When we come to the idea of inspiration, we use phrases that are very fuzzy. I've heard that Divine inspiration means that the Bible says the words that God had intended the Bible to say. Well, who gets to determine what exactly that means? Or the classic example of what I've heard Divine inspiration would mean would be to say that the words are "God breathed." Yet, once again, we don't have a very specific idea as to what that means. These are general definitions, but I'm afraid that our definitions are intentionally fuzzy so that we are not required to take a stand.

Then there are the King James only-ers. These are people that aren't necessarily wrong in criticizing English translations of the Bible - many times quite accurately. Yet, the problem that I have is that they use unequal weights and measures. For example, the Hebrew is poetic. Words are not simply translated because "ruach" means spirit. Ruach has three "translations": spirit, breath, and wind. Which of those three translations do we choose? Oh, well you choose whichever fits the best. But the problem really lies in that Hebrew paints pictures with its words. Ruach is the Divine energy that stirs up the creation. So, if we're going to translate it as wind, we would be correct. In fact, it is equally as correct as breath and spirit. So how do we translate it? That's the difficulty.

I'm not going to say that any one translation is better than another. I think that all English translations have their shortcomings, and the different manuscripts that we have of both Hebrew and Greek show slight variations. They are very slight, but they exist. So, if we're going to say that Divine inspiration means that God had literally breathed this version of the Bible, and every other version must line up to this plumb line, we're left with a difficulty. Which one do we pick? If we say that the King James Version is the ultimate, then what about the later versions that had better technique and understanding in how to translate the biblical Greek?

But then this also goes with all the other versions. If we say that the New International Version of the Bible is the absolute authority, then we end up having to ask about those pesky verses that are omitted from the Bible. But what if we're actually going about this all wrong? I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and therefore I believe in a literal creation of the world exactly as it is stated in Genesis 1-11 (or so). I believe that when the prophet spoke, they spoke the very words of God.

So how would I define inspiration if not by saying that these are the very words of God in textual form? In order to answer that, we only need to ask why it is important to have an inspired text? What is the point of Divine inspiration?

When I engage, or I hear of others engaging, in dialogue about the Bible, the most common criticism is that the manuscripts aren't exactly the same, and we really can't be sure that they were written when we say they were written, and how do we know that this wasn't added years later? The attack isn't so much about what is said, but instead on when it is said. The attack isn't so much on whether what was said is true or not, but instead on whether it was ever said, or if we just made the whole thing up. Why? It is easier to attack the manuscripts and say that we can't be certain of their validity than it is to disprove the statements. If the texts that make the statements can be proven fallacious, then the whole of the text is fallacious.

So Divine inspiration is really getting at the heart of, "Yea, hast God said?" This isn't an issue of whether the Bible is correct when it uses this word rather than that, but instead an issue of the revelation of God. So when we're trying to define what Divine inspiration is, we need to stand it up against the understanding that this reveals God as He is. Divine inspiration, then, is not found in the original texts, nor in the modern English versions. It is found solely in the person of Jesus Christ. From that revelation, we come to a further questioning of the texts. Does what is written here in my English version align with the person of Christ Jesus and who He has revealed God to be?

The debate is not over textual analysis and whether we translated the words correctly. The debate is over whether this reveals the heart of God, or whether it instead reveals something contrary to God. So debates on whether this or that passage/verse is supposed to be in here, should we go with the Texas Receptus, or the Latin Vulgate, or the Massoretic, or the Septuagint, etc are really only a little higher than nonissue. What is first and foremost to be presented is Christ and the character of God. Once we have that established, lets then go into the texts and decide as to which one seems to fit the best. Slight copyist errors and other minor variations in the original manuscripts can be trifled about later. First and foremost, we need to ask whether this is truly revealing God, or if it is a perversion.

Divine inspiration is the idea that God has breathed the whole of Scripture to reveal Himself. That is slightly different than saying that this or that version is the word of God. It is taking up the whole counsel and then wrestling from that revelation of Christ with the smaller details. Lets first and foremost get the foundation laid. When we're debating with atheists or Muslims or our Jewish brethren over whether the New Testament documents are valid, the best thing to do is not to quarrel over various texts and we believe the King James, but instead to display the glory of Christ and how the whole of the Bible displays the progressive revelation of God.

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God because I read "All Scripture is inspired..." I believe the Bible is the word of God because God has revealed Himself to me through the eternal Spirit giving illumination. God took out my heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh. Now when I read the Bible, whether I'm reading the NIV, NASB, NKJV, KJV, or the Message, I have something greater than the words on the page to line up to. Sometimes things just aren't worded correctly, and when we go back to original language we ask, "Why did they translate it like that?" Sometimes we need to read a cumulative and broad range of English versions to understand the point being made. But the reason I read the Bible the first place was because of the Spirit bearing witness in me. It was not until later, after I had learned a bit more about the whole of the Bible, that I started even asking such questions.

Ultimately, I think that when we simplify too much we lose a lot of doctrinal reality. God is Triune, therefore I believe that He has and does communicate with Himself. He has also communicated and revealed Himself to His creation through speaking. Because He has communicated Himself, I have every reason to believe that He has given us an inspired Word that reveals Him perfectly - not because such and such text is 100% accurately speaking the very inclinations and thoughts of God, but rather because God has given a revelation of Himself through those texts.

There are sometimes where I would say, yes, God is speaking directly through this text the very words out of His mouth. There are other times, like in the book of Job, where there is a revelation of God being expressed. God was upset with Job's friends because they did not accurately depict Him. That is the beauty of inspiration. It shows us God as He in fact is, so that when we read His word we can better understand His heart through the revelation that He continues to express through the Spirit. We don't read it as undiscerning nincompoops. We have been given every tool necessary to discern the text for what it is truly saying. That is the Divine inspiration: the Spirit bearing witness.

The End from the Beginning

My wife shared a dream that she had the other night. In the later part of the dream, we were preaching together. I was trying to explain from Genesis through Revelation how everything fits together to give a whole picture. She would fill in for when I was looking up Scripture references with a "holiness message." The two worked side by side, though slightly different subjects. She kept hearing that I was at an ultimate moment to begin to share the holiness of God, and I continued to press forward to express the whole of the message. She mentioned that there was a battle: do we stop because we know that the people can only handle so much and speak to them about God and His holiness, or should we continue to express the whole picture so they can essentially take home the leftovers and feed from it for the next few days?

The dream got me thinking. I don't typically speak in a way to expound a certain text. As much as I love to hear teachers express the depths of this or that passage, I am more of one that finds beauty in how this text is a part of the whole, and here is how it all fits together. I'm not sure what exactly that means for me, but I do know that it seems like it gets me in trouble sometimes...

T. Austin Sparks had said that if we want to know the end, we should look for it in the beginning. God somehow in His genius (if there only were a bigger word than that!) is able to express the end from the beginning. He is able to expound to us something that we should be looking for at the end from the beginning. The book of Genesis and the book of Acts are expressions of God's ultimate plans of redemption. From there, we read the expression, "the Law and the Prophets." This was an idiom to say, "from Genesis through Revelation," basically meaning the whole Bible.

A lot of times we find ourselves captivated by this or that speculative kind of teaching. It might be end times related (some of the craziest ideas come from that), or it might be the notion that the 10 tribes of Northern Israel (Ephraim) were "lost." Then people want to go hunt them down to come to a conclusion that we're Israeli no matter where we were born. Even the rapper Chingy has had the "epiphany" that he is somehow of one of the lost tribes.

How do we keep from such foolishness? How do we keep from such nonsense as the prosperity gospel? How do we discern truth when all about us are chaotic statements and truisms (cliches)?

It takes a couple things. It is expressed in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 that it takes a love of the truth. But what is truth? Know this: the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth that will lead us into "all truth." We must love the Holy Spirit and what it would teach us. That being said, it also takes discernment to know what is being spoken by the Holy Sprit and what is being spoken from our own arrogance or possibly even demonic voices. That is where the next thing comes in: we must have a solid foundation of the "whole counsel of God."

What is that whole counsel of God? It is the whole picture from Genesis through Revelation. However, contrary to saying that it means we know how it all fits together, we need to be able to see the heart, intention, and character of God from Genesis through Revelation. It all expresses Him, and any other foundation which is Christ is a false foundation.

While considering these things in my heart, I came to realize how much I actually do love the Law and the Prophets. Not as the idiom of the whole Bible only, but even the literal Law and Prophets. My favorite Old Testament books are Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, and Zechariah. How ridiculous is that? I might be the only person I've ever met that "rejoices" each time that Leviticus comes around for my daily reading...

Yet, it is these very books - the five books of Moses - that give us the basis for all of Scriptural understanding. Every statement in the New Testament has its origin from the five books of Moses. It all filters from that foundation. Christ is as the heart of the books of Moses, and if we cannot recognize Him there then we cannot recognize Him. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Any other depiction of Christ is not truth. It is from that understanding of Christ in the Old Testament - as expressed through the truth of the Holy Spirit - that we have come to a place where we cannot be deceived. Nothing can fool you if you see Christ through everything.

I think this might be why I am so bent on expressing the entire Bible every time I speak... There is something that is expressed in seeing Jesus in even Leviticus - that He is our sacrifice and offering, whether burnt offering, peace offering, wave offering, meal offering, or otherwise. When you can go from seeing Jesus in the books of Moses to expressing Him in the prophetic Scriptures and eschatology, you are beginning to lay down the foundation necessary for the Church to be built upon. This is beautiful, and I think it might even be the "beauty of holiness."

Mystery of Messiah

Why does the Old Testament talk about the nations being judged because of their treatment of Israel, and then the New Testament speaks of judgment coming to the nations because of Jesus?

In the book of Isaiah, when you reach chapter 40 and onward, it seems as though there is a blur between Israel and their judgment and the Messiah’s suffering. Many times you read of Israel being the servant of God. But then only a few verses later you read of a servant that will deliver Israel. And then you read again of how Jacob is God’s chosen – His elect. And then you read of the Messiah that is the elect being called of name by God. It almost seems as though the Messiah and Israel are both intertwined and to receive judgment/chastisement. Maybe that is why the orthodox Jews find Isaiah 53 being about Israel instead of Messiah.

Part of what we’re seeing here is that Israel is a victim. Their past and their history show a lot of persecution and suffering. So when we are in Isaiah 53, we as Christians read this as Jesus. Some Jews, however, are able to internalize it and see Israel. So I know that when I say this I’m stepping on toes and hitting a nerve. But I think that the difference between the Jewish translation of this passage being Israel and the Christian translation being Messiah is that the former sees self as a victim and the latter sees self as a victor.

This is important to note. When you read the prayers of the prophets, and when you read about the salvation of Israel, you find over and over again that the people Israel need to acknowledge that they are the ones at fault. This isn’t the goyim (nations) that are persecuting us. It is God Himself chastising. This isn’t suffering being inflicted by godless men. This is God Himself judging. If they are unwilling to receive the judgment of God as from God, but will only receive it as victims of a cruel anti-Semitic world, then they will continue to undergo suffering and persecution – each time getting worse than the last.

But this is something every Christian needs to understand as well. If God did not spare His own Son, and if God did not spare His own people, why would He spare we that are grafted in as wild branches? Do not boast. Do not be arrogant or conceited. God has grafted you into their root for purpose. But God will cut you off and graft them back in.  There will come a time where they will be regrafted, but it won’t be at the expense of the Gentile believers. Only if you are diligent and don’t boast against the true branches will you endure to the end.

So get back to the initial question of “How do you reconcile the Old Testament saying that the judgment of the nations comes down to how they treat the Jew and the New Testament saying that the judgment of the nations comes down to what they do with Jesus?” How do these things come together? It is a paradox, but if you will study this, you will find that it comes together in the cross. It is the pattern of God that suffering goes before the glory. Before there was resurrection, there had to be death.

God’s pattern has been established in the cross of Jesus. When you read the prophecies concerning Israel’s redemption, it always either states that there will no longer be tribulation, persecution, suffering, tears, etc, or it comes right after passages about judgment. It is always one or the other. And the reason for that is because it is the pattern of God. The end of the age will conclude with Jesus’ return. But it comes immediately after suffering like the world has never seen.

So what am I getting at here?

The paradox is something of hermeneutic. Many times in the prophets they said there would be death and pestilence and famine and judgment. All of these things happened. But did it happen exactly like the prophet said? Many times no. There was an immediate fulfillment, and yet there was only a partial fulfillment. The way this is worded is, “already and not yet.” It has already happened, but has yet to happen.

So the paradox of Israel and the Messiah come to a crux at this. Yes, many of the Scriptures that are referenced in the New Testament have been fulfilled. Peter said that the latter days outpouring of the Spirit had come in Acts 2. Peter indicated in his first epistle chapter 2 that we are living stones building a spiritual temple as a spiritual priesthood and offering spiritual sacrifices. This is probably a reference to Hosea 3:4 where God said that Israel shall for a time be without temple, sacrifice, priest, and ephod until David their king comes and rules over them.

But has that been fulfilled? Peter says yes, but there is an obvious sense in which it has not been fulfilled. Jesus has not returned. There has not been an antichrist to cut off sacrifices at the temple. There has not been an abolition of death. There hasn’t been the final defeat of Satan. World peace has not been established. So there must be something yet future that will take place that will fulfill all these prophecies. Though they have had partial fulfillment, and we can even say that there are spiritual implications in them, there has not been the literal fulfillment of any of these things.

And so the main point is not to split the Messiah and Israel. It is not to distinguish between which prophecies are about Jesus and which prophecies are about Israel in the last days. The main point is to understand that their callings are the same. The Messiah is the first fruit. He suffered and was raised from the dead before that ultimate suffering and resurrection of Israel. But it doesn’t stop there. There is another mystery at work here.

We are the Body of Christ. Those who have the testimony of Jesus and follow the commandments of God are now called to live out and fulfill the very same Scriptures given to Christ. We are also called to be a suffering servant. That isn’t to say that we are to be victims, but that we are to suffer on behalf of. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is not one that continuously is persecuted. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is one that lays down his life for the benefit of all.

This was fulfilled in the cross of Jesus. But there is another fulfillment still yet to come in the Church. And then there will be the final fulfillment in Israel’s death and resurrection at the end of the age. We are all heading to this. The glory of God being revealed from on high cannot come until the suffering and death of all three of these. Messiah is the first fruit, a remnant of the Church is then to have that same achievement and obtain the first resurrection, and then Israel will also suffer the death and resurrection to be the priestly nation to the nations in the Millennial Kingdom. The first has already happened, the last two are yet future.

This is why we need to be extremely careful in our Christology. We can actually attribute to Christ something that deteriorates God. Use extreme caution when saying something is fulfilled in Christ, and therefore it doesn’t need to happen in the future. This is heresy.

The reason that the nations get judged by how they treat Israel and what they do with Jesus is in this. They are the same question. Ultimately, what you are saying in your treatment of these two issues is what you are saying about God. It is the exact same pattern of God being worked out before the nations. If they deny Jesus, they will also deny the work of God in Israel. If they deny the work of God in Israel, they will also deny Jesus. To deny the one is to deny the other. We're talking about God's chosen servant in both cases. This gets to the heart of the matter.

If a Christian claims belief in Jesus, but then renounces this kind of scenario with Israel, then they are ultimately denying the very same Gospel message they proclaim. The cross is foolishness, but why? It is foolishness because who has ever heard of the idea that we gain our victory in our death? Who would call this logical that he who loses his life shall find it? It was true of Jesus, it is true for us, and it will be true for Israel in the last days.
]]>

Cosmic and Eternal Perspective

I find it quite strange that when I communicate this perspective, there are very few who are acceptant of it. As if saying that we won’t be raptured is bad enough, when you then compound upon that the belief that Israel will be the priesthood to the nations and that Jesus will return and set up His Kingdom from Israel, ruling and reigning from Zion, it is the final straw. For some reason, people are unwilling to come to terms with that. The most common response is not Scriptural rebuttal, but instead are questions like, “Why can’t God do it differently? How do you know that God wants to do it that way? How can you tell (which is the same as how do you know) that God wouldn’t do something else? He does work in mysterious ways, right? His thoughts are not our thoughts, right? So how would you know that this is what He has in mind?”

These are fair questions at face value. I’ve answered them, but haven’t fully answered them. It goes back to the God that chooses. Why would He choose Jerusalem? Why would He choose Zion? Why would He choose Israel? Why did God choose Gideon? Why did God choose Samson? Was there something intrinsic in Gideon or Samson that God saw? Or was it quite the opposite?

If we think that Samson was some muscular man that was 7 feet tall and 250 pounds of pure muscle, then we have a wrong basis from which we perceive. God chooses that which is foolish and that which weak to confound the wise and strong. It is not so much about the person of God’s choosing that make the man spectacular. It is the God that chooses that makes the man spectacular. This needs to register deep within us. If we think that God would choose us as the mostly Gentile Church to be that end time people to intercede for Israel because of our merit or qualifications, then we have left the faith. It is not in our strength that God is calling us, but in our weakness.

The whole view comes from a much larger view. So in order to answer the rebuttals that claim I don’t know whether God would or would not act and react in this or that manner, we need to step back and view things from a cosmic level. We find such a cosmic level in Genesis. Of all places in Scripture, the book of Ephesians and the Garden of Eden are the 2 that most specifically address the cosmic and eternal perspective.

⁸ And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

⁹ And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

¹⁵ And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

¹⁶ And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

¹⁷ But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 2:8-9, 15-17

Something that is a good study is to look up the Hebrew. What did God command that Adam not do? What would be the result? Then you cross reference with the next chapter and read what Eve says, it is completely different. Though the sentence in English looks the same, the Hebrew is very distinct. Then the serpent repeats what God really did say. Satan deceived the woman by telling her the truth.

But here in our study, I want to examine this text closely. Nowhere in the text does God say that Adam was to not eat of the tree of life. He was only told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What is it about knowledge of good and evil that God would forbid Adam to eat of this tree? What is it about the tree of life that Adam would choose to not eat of it?

Do you understand my questions? Out of all of the things that God could have set up in the garden and said not to partake of, why was it a tree that would reveal to Adam good and evil? Does God intend for humanity to be undiscerning? And what was so repelling of the tree of life that Adam would have possibly been in the garden for 100 years and not once taken from that tree of life? Did it look displeasing, whereas the tree of the knowledge of good and evil looked pleasing?

There are zero Scriptures anywhere in the Bible that will tell you what the trees looked like. There are also zero Scriptures that will tell you what these trees represent. This is something that needs to be discerned collectively and by the Holy Spirit. So lets start with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Why would God forbid Adam to take of that fruit? Is there something about knowing good and evil that God does not desire for us?

I think that this is easiest to answer. Obviously, God wants us to know the difference between good and evil. He tells us to discern right from wrong. He tells us to discern the spirits. He tells us to separate the precious from the vile. He tells us to walk in the light instead of in the darkness. He tells us to be holy as He is holy. He tells us to choose life over death. How can God require this of us if we aren’t to be discerning?

This is a different kind of discernment. What the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents is human efficiency. This is what we are able to accomplish outside of God. We can establish morale. We can use our rationale and our intellect to determine that it is wrong to rape, kill, and steal. We don’t want someone to come up to us and stab us, so that is obviously “wrong.” But by what basis do we judge others if atheism is true? To what degree is there a moral standard that is universal? At best, we can determine according to communities, societies, nations, and maybe even internationally what is good and bad. But can we truly decide whether Hitler was a good or bad person?

By what means, outside of God, do we gain our morality? This is key. Is morality simply a list of do’s and don’ts? Is there something else to morality? I think so. Morality is a necessity. But it goes beyond what is right and wrong. We think that morality is living life in a way that we dodge the “big sins.” Yet, we lack the understanding that morality doesn’t stem from what we do. It stems from who we are.

The grotesque sins that we can commit aren’t always connected to something obviously vile. I’ll give you an example. I know a family that has two kids. Both of them have grown up to be hellions while still being involved in their church. She is quite sexually active, and he is always doped up on drugs. What caused this? When you take a look at the family as a whole, the parents are very lenient. They have the attitude that you can’t decide for yourself until you try it. So they allow their kids to be demons and hooked on drugs and sexuality with full expectation that they’ll grow out of it. But then it doesn’t stop with the sex and drugs. Now they disrespect their parents. Why?

The question doesn’t start with the disrespect. That is what the parents are so offended about. It doesn’t start with their lack of obedience. The place to start looking is the parent’s lack of love. It was their lack of being parents that led their children to find some other fill. It was that drive to find another fill that led to the bigger problem: a hatred of their own parents. The hatred isn’t the problem. That is a side effect of the problem.

I’ll give another example. I know someone who is divorced. They had a child out of wedlock. Their relationship to their ex-spouse is rocky. What came first: the rocky relationship or the divorce? Well, common sense would say the rocky relationship. That isn’t the case though. They had both divorced one another before even having trouble in the relationship. I don’t mean that they left one another. I mean that they were still allowing their interests in other men or women dictate. They were still flirtatious. They were still willing to show their love to another at their spouse’s expense. This was from both sides. The sin wasn’t the divorce. It wasn’t the child out of wedlock. The child out of wedlock and the wedding were both attempts to try to keep the relationship going. The downfall was that neither one of them were devoted.

What am I getting at with this? We need to be people who are willing to plumb the depths of our sins. We need to be willing to see it for what it really is. Morality doesn’t start with a question of right and wrong. Morality starts with devotion and determination that nothing will go unchecked and unnoticed. Everything that we do in life will be observed carefully to see if there is anything behind it that is evil in disguise.

It is a nice thing to pick up the check for someone else at the dinner table. What is the motive? Are you trying to be nice? Are you trying to show off? Are you trying to hold it over their head so that next time you can say they owe you? The righteous does righteous acts and doesn’t even realize they have done it. You can bring it up to them that the way they conduct themselves is very righteous. They wouldn’t have noticed.

For example: it says in Deuteronomy 15 that we are to take care of the orphans, widows, foreigners, traveler, family, and that we should not knowingly try to oppress anyone. This isn’t hard for the righteous. They just live in that kind of lifestyle. They are generous. When someone is seen without a coat, they give him or her their coat. They don’t even have to think about it. That is just who we’re taught to be by God. You see someone in need, so you supply the need.

This is where morality starts. It starts with motives and core actions. If you are an introvert, there are certain things that you need to be careful of. You need to be careful of not keeping quiet when it is necessary to speak. If you are an extrovert, you need to be careful not to speak when you need to be quiet. It isn’t about whether it is right or wrong. The issue is over a love of truth.

There are certain situations where it is more loving to keep quiet and allow someone to suffer and ask, “Why would God allow this?” There are times where if you keep quiet, you are now doing disservice. It takes discernment. It also takes a lot of agony. God will form you. I won’t say that I have arrived because this is the biggest struggle I have. Trying to find the absolute root of things is tough.

But this is what morality is. Morality is searching to the root. It is digging up everything until you find that first initial problem. This doesn’t always involve your own life (although that is most frequent). Would it have been the moral thing to do if Dietrich Bonhoeffer would have succeeded in killing Hitler? Hitler was a monster, but the Bible says to submit under the governmental authority. It says that vengeance is the Lord’s.

Probing the depths of morality takes effort. It takes more than effort. It takes a certain kind of moral stamina. It is easy to raise questions of whether it is “right or wrong.” It is much more painstaking to not be content with right or wrong but digging to the root to see where the issue really lies. Is it okay to kiss before marriage? Is it okay to display any kind of physical affection outside of marriage?

When we have a moral deficiency in any area, that deficiency will expose itself somewhere. This is certain: your sin will find you out. Moral deficiency isn’t about addictions to cigarettes or pornography. Moral deficiency is about a lack in even believing that there is a right or wrong in certain matters. Where were those parent’s morals when they allowed their children to grow up watching sex and drug filled movies? Where were those parent’s morals when they allowed their kids to go out partying all night? Now suddenly when they don’t have respect from their kids they want to play the morality card. You forfeited your morality when you allowed blatant sin and corruption to be displayed before their eyes daily in your own home.

I see a lot of people who have pictures of their whole family in a certain sport jersey. Then they want to talk about how their lives are devoted only to Jesus. You can’t have them both. If you have that severe of a pride for your favorite football team that your kids are forced to wear the jerseys before they even understand the sport, then you aren’t devoted to God. You can take your pick.

Morality must issue from God. He is the only fully moral being. Anything that will block us or keep us from seeing Him clearly and expressing Him clearly to others through our actions is not moral. Any kind of deception, whether inward or outward, is amoral. To be amoral is to reject morals. It is to say that morality doesn’t exist. There are no morals; there are only my own desires and lusts.

Lets take this back to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If man is the one deciding what is good and what is evil, then can there be true morality? Do we have that desire to probe the depths? Do we have that ability to discern the root of sin? It takes God’s speaking and discernment from His Holy Spirit to reveal to us the depths. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a cheapie. It is a cop-out, an evasion.

This is the struggle. We have two systems that have been established: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. The one says that we can decide what is good and evil, the other claims there is none good but God. To which do you prescribe? Does the basis of all morality come from God? Do you search the inner depths of self to see if there is anything that comes from something outside of God? Jesus got to the root when He said that to look upon another woman with lust is adultery.

This is the definition of the two trees. One is morale; the other is life. To one we grant access that we are all supposed to be “good people” and that we ought not to be unkind and this is how civilized people ought to live and move and speak and treat one another. There are certain standards that have been made by society. It is improper to go around yelling the n-word. But why? Is it wrong because it is offensive, or is it wrong because the root comes from ungodliness?

If morality is merely doing and performing the things that cause the least amount of offense or human pain, then we have a cheap morality. And this is only setting the stage. The true depths come when we add in Ephesians. This is only describing the two sides. This is only defining terms. We have the wisdom of God versus the knowledge of men. But where does that knowledge come from? Who is it that gave the knowledge to man?

Here is where the plot thickens. Satan deceived Eve, and in that has given us our morality. The devil doesn’t care how moral we are. We can be good people. He will still destroy us in our morals. There are good atheists. They aren’t all evil. Some are. But by what definition do we prescribe someone as good or evil? If Jesus Himself questioned the rich young ruler for calling Him good, then why would any of us take the title of good? Even Jesus said that God alone is good; we ought all the more to recognize our failure.

⁸ Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

⁹ And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Ephesians 3:8-9

I did not put the full statement here on purpose. I don’t want to rush into this. Let it sink in. Paul was given the ability to see this mystery because he really believed that he was the least of all saints. It is from this that he goes into the depths of this mystery mentioned in verse 9. But let me prelude. This is a mystery, but Paul calls it, “the fellowship of the mystery.” Why would he call it that? It is because it is from fellowship that this mystery is obtained. I haven’t told you what the mystery is yet. But view carefully what is being said. Outside of fellowship with God and with each other, this mystery has no place.

We find in chapter 2 the kind of fellowship that Paul is talking about. He mentions that there is no distinction between the Jew and the Gentile. When we read Paul, we have to take him at all the words that he has spoken. We can’t just read the epistle to the Ephesians and suspect we know what he is talking about. The Romans are the only Church he wrote to that he did not also visit before he wrote.

It is within the Book of Romans (chapter 11) that we find Paul explained that we as Gentiles have been grafted into the House of Israel. So when we see Paul expound that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, he is saying that we are both grafted in.

This is extremely important. The better we can view and believe that, the better we can prepare and believe the rest of the eschatological Scriptures. Do you truly believe that you have been grafted in and are now a part of Israel? You, though you might be Gentile, are now the Israel of God. But that does not diminish Israel at all. It paradoxically fulfills Israel even more. Because we are grafted in, God now has an Israel (both Jew and Gentile alike – whether saved or unsaved (Romans 11:26)) that is a fuller representation of who He is in the Earth.

¹⁰ To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Ephesians 3:10

It is from this Israel that is the fullness of Him who fills all things that God is going to display to the principalities and powers (demons) the manifest wisdom of God. What is the manifest wisdom of God? It is the value system. It is everything we have been discussing about morality up to this point. There is an entire system that has been made where people follow and believe they are doing rightly, and yet are completely duped. God’s wisdom is to give strength to the weak. God’s wisdom is to use the fool to confound the wise. God’s wisdom is to take a sinner and be able to show the world through that wretch the righteousness of God.

How is it that we can display God’s wisdom? It is through being that Israel. It is from accepting the Jew, whether saved or unsaved, as part of the Kingdom because they are under the same Head – whether they know it or not. We are brothers and sisters with them. We are incomplete without them. They are incomplete without us. It is in unity that we are able to display the character of God. What kind of characteristic are we displaying? Drum roll, please.

God is a trinity. Jesus did nothing of Himself. In all things, He did only what He saw the Father do. He spoke only the words of the Holy Spirit. The Father only did that which would glorify the Son. He used the Holy Spirit to give strength and edification to Jesus. The Holy Spirit only desired to reveal the Father through Jesus. They were all interwoven together where you cannot see the one without seeing the other two. This is the basis of community. When you see me, you see my wife. You see those saints that God has put us in community with.

This is the fellowship of the mystery. When we can live sacrificial lives where our only desire is to promote and glorify our brothers and sisters (yes, that even means Israel), then we have come of age and are now qualified to rule and reign with Christ. It is by losing your life that you gain it. In living solely to glorify God and to promote those around you and to deny your own life so that Israel might live, you have now performed the priestly function of intercession. This is how God intends to display the manifest wisdom of God to the principalities and powers. This is how He intends to defeat Satan. By our deaths, and by the Antichrist overcoming us, we gain the victory. It is the same wisdom of the devil that put Jesus upon the cross. It is the same wisdom of God that raised Jesus from the dead and defeated Satan and death.

But there will be an ultimate triumph over both Satan and death. It awaits the consummation of the ages. It takes our death and sacrifice for Israel to defeat the powers that blind them. It takes Israel’s death and Calvary experience through the nations that defeats the demonic forces blinding the nations. It is in the death and resurrection of the saints that life is given to Israel. It is in the death and resurrection of Israel that life comes to the nations. As it is written:

¹² Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?

¹³ For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

¹⁴ If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

¹⁵ For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
Romans 11:12-15 (emphasis mine)

It is with this perspective that we can rightly appreciate and perceive the eschatological framework. Therefore, I will give an overview of the end times for those who are going to need this repeated several times. In this overview, we will not be examining too many of the details. That will come in with Daniel and Revelation.