Sin and Death

            Toward the end of 1 Corinthians, we find a verse that helps us to explain the connection between sin and death. Interestingly, the two words are not used as we commonly use them today. The reference is, of course, 1 Corinthians 15:56: “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” Notice here that death is not necessarily the thing that happens at the end of life, for we simply don’t know if there is or is not a sting in that death. Instead, death seems to be something that we all know exactly what is being spoken of. It is a daily thing, suffering the normal aspects of life. Because the sting of death is sin, we see that sin is something that has us in its grips. Death is defined as a moment-by-moment decision to continue in the bounds of sin, or to step out through the cross of Christ Jesus to choose life. We are given the choice, and if we choose death, then we shall face death ultimately (reference Revelation 20:14).

            What shall we say of sin? If death is moment by moment because of sin, then we must ask what we mean by sin. For many, sin is the action that offends God. It is the disobedience to the law of Christ. However, we’ll see later in this section why exactly that cannot be. Sin is a power. It is a condition. We cannot relieve ourselves from the grips of sin. It takes a supernatural work to break the chains of sin. It is at work in our members so that when we were once under the law of sin and death, we found that no matter how greatly we desired to obey the law, we did the very things we did not want to do. We strove to obey God’s commands, but there is something at work within us to prevent us. This prevention is actually not some sort of human nature, but rather a sin nature. It is a secondary nature that has been put upon us.

            The actions called sins are not to be understood as the “end all be all”. Instead, we should understand that the actions are a result of something deeper. There is an inward working of death in our mortal bodies. We are increasingly being moved further and further away from God and toward death. Sin reigns in our bodies, and therefore we are stuck in the grips of death – to be absent from God. It is our sin that separates us from God, but sin of what kind? Certainly it is not the petty shortcomings that we all face, for when we are in Christ there is no condemnation. No, this sin being expressed by Isaiah the prophet is an inward reality of death having its way in our members. It is a condition, a disposition, and that without remedy.

            Now, what is meant by Paul when he says that the power of sin is the law? In Romans 7, he establishes the fact that the law is not unholy, nor evil. On the contrary, the Law is the mechanism that God used to express His heart to us. It is holy, holy, holy. When Paul uses the term “law”, it needs to be understood in the context of two kingdoms. There is a wisdom of the kingdom of darkness that says we can do on our own strength. To walk according to the law is to say that God has given us His ‘manual’ and we only need to live in accordance to it. After all, we do read the B-I-B-L-E – the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. To view the Scripture in this manner is to take the holy things of God in a carnal manner – walking out our faith by our own strength and power – and thus utilizing the wisdom of demons to achieve a preconceived notion of righteousness. Thus, we are not simply talking about the law in content, but the law in practice. It is not just the law, but the law manipulated through the wisdom of this age.

            It is all about self-preservation. Because we know what God commands, we can perform these regulations in order to attain unto righteousness. However, righteousness comes through faith and faith alone. To trust in the works of the law is to trust in sin and death, for through the law sin came. In the ever-nagging question of whether we’re supposed to obey the Torah, we want to answer question number two without asking question number one. The first thing to answer is whether we have indeed established our righteousness upon faith, or whether we in fact do have some sort of religious system and tradition to uphold a preconceived notion of righteousness. Once that has been established, we can then seek to understand the Law according to faith. For they who desire to observe a Sabbath day, do it unto Christ through faith. For they who say that every day is a Sabbath, do so unto Christ through faith.

            We do not observe the letter of the Law as was once taught. Instead, we see that the Passover is fulfilled in Christ, and so when we keep the Passover, it is through Christ and not of fleshly obligation. We see in the kosher diet as ascribed in Leviticus 11 that Christ is our clean food – the bread of truth and sincerity without leaven, and our meat in due season – thus anything clean points us to Christ, and anything unclean reveals to us what Christ was not. In all things, whether eating or drinking, we do it unto Christ. The question of whether we’re free to live apart from the law is answered as follows: Love your neighbor as yourself, for in this the whole of the law is summed up. You who are not circumcised, remain as you are. You who have not kept the kosher diet, think heavily before taking up that kosher diet. Do all things unto Christ through faith, for the power of sin is the law. Now that you have been given freedom, do not exchange that freedom for bondage. You’ve been set free for freedom’s sake.

            This is the power of the kingdom of darkness: Death being at work in us through sin, and sin being at work in us through our own attempts at being righteous. To be free from this is to be free indeed. That kind of freedom comes with a price. The author of Hebrews warned his readers, “In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.” It takes the Gethsemane experience of every believer to break past the bounds of sin and death and into the realm of eternal glory. It is that resurrection glory that we seek, not just at the end of the age, but to be alive within our members even now. We are of a different kingdom, and therefore we are of a different wisdom. We are not bound by sin and death – the power of the kingdom of darkness – but instead we are bound to Christ. Now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve the new way of the Spirit, and now in the old way of the written code. We are set free, not to avoid the Torah, but to find the deeper expression of it through life lived unto Christ through faith.

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 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.

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.

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.

Humanity's Ultimate Purpose - Genesis 2:4-15

4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LordGod made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

8 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 the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
Genesis 2:4-15

What is humanity's ultimate purpose? We find the solution in the very beginning of the Bible I'd like to take the time to digest some of what is happening here in the Garden of Eden.

In Genesis 1, elohim is the name given to God. But in chapter two, it is jehova elohim (LORD God). Elohim is a suggestive pronoun. It denotes power, specifically the one that holds all power (or at least more power than anyone or anything else). Jehova is our English way of saying Yahweh, which is another English way of saying the YHWH. We aren't entirely sure how to say this name, so we gave it a label: the tetragrammaton. It is usually suggested that this name is from the verb hayah, which would give the interpretation "I am/exist." When we have two Hebrew nouns together, we place the word "of" in between them. So the Lord God is being titled, "I AM of Mighty Power." 

It is supposed from Genesis 2:6 that mankind was given the purpose to till the ground. We'll talk about problems with this later. Instead, I want to skip to verse 7. I this verse, we find Adam consisted of both heaven and earth, thus becoming a living creature. The Hebrew word used for the breath of God is not the same word used in Genesis 1:2, ruach, but instead nephesh (to blow).

Jesus, in John 20:22 blew on His disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit..." There is a hermeneutic principle that says when you see the first time a word or phrase is used, mark it down. We can learn what that word or phrase means from that first instance it is used. For example, I mentioned the word ruach. Ruach is translated spirit, breath, or wind. But there is a thing to note about ruach: it is God's Spirit. Ruach, to me, is much more properly defined as the energy (Spirit) of God that causes the creation to stir. This is why it is also sometimes denoted as wind or breath: the Spirit itself causes for the creation to stir when it is present. 

So, when we see in Genesis 2:7 that the Lord God breathed into Adam, we need to identify this. This is the God that breathes life. When John points out that Jesus blew on His disciples, John is making the statement that Jesus is not a mere man. He is the tetragrammaton in the flesh. This would also fit with the Holy Spirit being the ruach haqodesh (Spirit of holiness). The ruach is the presence of God that stirs up the creation. Why does it denote breath? Because it is a part of the God that gives life, or breath, to mankind. In order for God to transmute life and breath into Adam, He must be both living and breathing. This is a fascinating idea to think of a God that is both living and breathing, unlike the gods of stone, wood, money, and television.

In Genesis 2:8, we read of this living God as one who plants... Some have said that this is actually a contradiction in the Bible because God plants the Garden after He made man. But in Genesis 1, God made the trees, fish, birds, and animals before He made man. The solution is really quite simple that it's pathetic. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a story of the seven days of creation. The author wasn't trying to give the intimate details of each day, but instead giving the overall summary of each day. Then, the author goes in and gives the details of day six when Adam and Eve were created. That is what we're reading about. There were trees, animals, birds, etc outside of the Garden of Eden, but God made this Garden specifically for Adam and Eve. 

Eden is the Hebrew word for delight. Because the Lord God had planted this Garden, and it was to be enjoyed and delighted in, we cannot then say that Adam was given the charge to "till the land." The only thing that Adam would have needed to till would have possibly been outside of the Garden. There is even a Jewish tradition that suggests maybe some of the trees in the Garden were bread trees. Adam wouldn't have even needed to made dough and bake the bread, because it would have already grown on the trees pre-baked and ready to eat. 

We know the story, so we know that Adam did get kicked out of the Garden. Obviously, then, this Garden does not cover the whole Earth. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:8 to say that Adam was placed in the Garden is sum (soom). It has absolutely no connotation to any effort on Adam's part, and complete connotation that God is the one doing the work. 

Out of the entire Garden, there are two trees named in verse 9: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life. What was the first command given to Adam? The first command is in verse 16, which I didn't put here. It is that Adam is to eat of every tree of the Garden. The command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is actually the second command given to Adam. The first is to eat and enjoy all of the trees of the Garden. So, when we think back on the story and point out that God put a limit on Adam and told Him, "Don't do this," we actually misunderstand the story. The whole thing is pointing to the fact that God made Adam and put him in the Garden so that Adam could enjoy the creation. 

Now, we read in verses 10-14 about these four rivers. Pishon means to increase. Gihon means to burst forth. Hiddekel means rapid. Euphrates means fruitfulness. 

In verse 15, we have the Hebrew word yanach used to mean "put." So, in verse 8 we read that man was put (sum) in the Garden, and in verse 15 we read that he was put (yanach) in the Garden. What is the difference between these two words? Yanach is a synonym of nuach, which means rest. The definition of yanach is "to deposit," or "to allow to stay." 

Note the translation of working in the Garden. "Tend and keep it." It was already tilled and cultivated and worked by God. The Hebrew is le'abdah welesamrah. Abad means to serve, and is sometimes used in relation to being a bond-servant. Samar means to protect, or to hedge about. Samar is the word used in the Ten Commandments, "keep my commands" (Exodus 20:6). To keep is to protect, or to guard. 

Something else to note is that the Hebrew does not agree in gender to suggest this is Adam's purpose in respect to the Garden. This must be an abstract view unrelated to the Garden. Adam was made to serve and protect God/God's words. That is the ultimate purpose of humanity. We aren't called to somehow toil and work and struggle, but instead to be in rest and leisure. Out of that rest we are to fulfill our primary role and calling in life: to protect the words of God. We are to be in service to God, worshiping and adoring He who has given us such a place as the Garden of Eden.

But what about us today? We are far from the Garden of Eden. In the book of Genesis we find a Garden, but in the book of Revelation (chapters 21-22) we find a City. In the Garden there was a river that split into four different directions. In the City there is a river that comes out from the throne of God. In the Garden there are two trees mentioned. In the City there is one tree mentioned (tree of life) twice (one on either side of the river). The Garden of Eden and the New Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven are both related. These are the ultimate intentions of God for humanity. 

We have this strange thought that the New Jerusalem will be some future time that we can't understand anything about it now, but Paul speaks of it in Galatians 4:25-26. "Now, Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother." Do you understand? We are currently seated with Christ in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6). We are currently called to be a part of that Holy City. But if we are thinking that we have to wait until that city is a literal reality in the New Heaven and New Earth, then we aren't ever going to strive to live according to that New Jerusalem. That New Jerusalem is free. It is free from fear, free from works of the Law, free from sin, and free from death. 

Upon our salvation, we are "placed" in that City. We are then bidden to stay in that City, to serve and protect the Lamb. Our protecting is to keep His commands, which is done by loving one another. Anyone who loves as Christ loved is protecting Him. To know His words and to know His commands, we only must love one another as Christ as loved us. This is the Law and the Prophets summed up: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. That is our high calling. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. We are all simply bid to come and enjoy, rest and serve. 

The Principalities and Powers

I found my fingers writing this while changing my Eschatology 101 outline into "book form." This was the introduction I gave to the subject of the principalities and powers. I cannot take credit for this writing. There is absolutely no way for me to express that I have this kind of wisdom. It was Holy Ghost inspired. The statement is not yet complete, so bare with the imperfections of it, but the exposition with real life event is something more than I am personally able to speak.

            There is a demonic force that is influencing all government and institutions. Nothing is beyond that influence. These demonic figures, typically the name Satan is given to represent all of them, are also called “the principalities and powers…” Principality and power causes for many Christians to think of governmental authority. However, what is being addressed is bigger than a king or ruler. These demonic principalities and powers have rule and sway over the realm of systems that causes for the whole world to be a massive Egypt in which all of humanity is subject to their rule. Humanity has been taken away from the place of freedom and brought into the place of bondage. But a bondage of what kind?

            A system is any institution, corporation, or organization that seeks it’s own perpetuation and/or goals over and above anything or anyone else. People do not matter. They are only numbers – means to an end. The ultimate end for systems is their perpetuation or success. Depending on what the “goal” of the institution, corporation, or organization is, we find the degree to which it despises and oppresses humanity. Even the organizations that are supposed to be bringing water to other countries and helping their fellow man are systems that ultimately cause oppression and slavery.

            I’ll give an example from a Christian college that I had visited while looking to go into “ministry training.” The college was a prominent college in my area (Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky), and they had a program where I could get a degree in Biblical Studies. When my wife and I (fiancé at that time) visited the school, they had bragged about how they are debt free. We saw the campus: an easy 30 acres, about 15 or more buildings, the latest technology, sprinkler systems going, and all the bells and whistles that say, “We are just as credible as any secular college that you will find.”

            This Christian college bragged about being debt free. They claimed that the Bible is their foundation. They claimed that being debt free is something to take seriously (I’m sure they heard this from someone like Dave Ramsey). They claimed that they use their budget wisely so that they can keep up-to-date on all of the latest technology and trends. Yet, when we asked about scholarships they said they don’t have any.

            Did you see it? This Christian college that would brag about being debt free keeps from going into debt by putting children into debt. Their goal is to be just as great, if not even better, than the secular universities. Their goal is to do all of that and more, because they are doing it Scripturally. Their goal is to keep from going into debt. How are they going to attain that end? They will force their thousands of students to go into massive debt of $5,000 to $15,000 a year, depending on their major and whether it is seminary or not. Tell me, how Christian is it to fund your empire on the backs of slaves?

            In the Bible, God told Israel that because they were enslaved in Egypt that they should never have slaves. If a foreigner comes into your land, you can hire them and cause them to work for you, but no Israelite has an occupation, and no Hebrew owns slaves. Everyone tends to their own homestead and trades with their community so that everyone is able to feed their families. If someone is in need, you take care of the poor. You take care of the widow and orphan. If someone can’t take care of himself or herself, for whatever reason, then it is your job to take care of them.

            Yet, when we get to 1 Kings, we begin to read of the kingdom of Solomon. Solomon was the son of David. He had 300 wives, which was specifically condemned for kings to do (Deuteronomy 17:17). He gathered horses; another thing condemned by God for kings to do (Deuteronomy 17:16). Then he also built the Temple of the Lord on the backs of slave labor (1 Kings 9:15). He also used that slave labor to build his palace and military bases. Behold Solomon’s kingdom: the New Egypt.

            The way that the 1 Kings records Solomon’s kingdom is very subtle, but very insulting. Solomon’s income is an annual 666 “talents” – a talent being about 25 tons. Going up to Solomon’s throne are six steps. On each step are two lions opposing each other. You have six lions on the left, six lions on the right, and six steps going up to the throne to give us another “666.” Solomon’s kingdom is being equated with the kingdom of Satan. Why? The reason for this equation is that Solomon had deliberately gone against the commandment of the Lord in multiple behaviors. In Solomon’s disobedience to God, he is actually establishing that even Israel itself is a system that is influenced more by the principalities and powers than by God.

            That “Christian college” that enslaves countless students each year so that they can look good has the same fate. I don’t care who the dean is. I don’t care how saved the staff are. I don’t care how Biblical the messages at chapel are. When you forfeit standing with God in absolution in such a way to push your agenda over and above the lives of people, then you have forsaken the command to “walk worthy of your calling.” The only thing left after Jerusalem becomes the “New Egypt” is exile. Babylon is the true kingdom of darkness, the nation that Satan has put his name upon, and any establishment that sacrifices their Christianity (or in this case, the next generation) upon the altar of Baal will inevitably be taken away into that darkened kingdom.

            If you love the darkness so much that you reject the light, then the darkness is what you will receive. Whether we have establishments and institutions of religion, or whether they are systems of government, it doesn’t matter. A system by definition looks out for itself before bending the knee to help out those that are connected to it. It might be true that they do a lot of good. But somewhere in the core of that foundation will be darkness. You cannot be beyond this. The only way to be free from this kind of manipulation of the principalities and powers is to not be a system. The only way to not be a system is to be an organism. What exactly an organism looks like is equally as difficult to understand.

            For we as the Body of Christ to be an organism instead of a religious institution would require that we are no longer supporting any kind of Egypt. Either God brings us out from Egypt or we’re still in Egypt.  A partial deliverance is no deliverance. We might come out from the world in the sense that we are no longer enslaved to sin, but if we then continue in the ways of the world – the establishment and perpetuation of systems – then we haven’t truly been brought out of the world. This is all or nothing. That doesn’t necessarily mean that we are to be jobless, without schooling, etcetera. It means that even if we are in that system, we are not of that system. We do not endorse it, and we blow the whistle. We make it clear where we stand and we are not afraid to condemn such things as evil. Even if we are at a “Christian college,” we call the entire infrastructure to repentance and not merely a few souls within it.

Egypt is System

Maybe the very first statement should be one that tells you that I am not speaking of modern day political Egypt. The Egypt in the Bible is both a symbol as well as a spirit. Just in case anyone would read this and either get offended or start proclaiming that modern day Egypt is what I have to say, I've put it forth immediately.

When we read the Bible, it doesn't take long before we find the Exodus story (second book of the Bible). From that moment onward, Egypt is recognized as the place of bondage. However, I think that we misunderstand what bondage even is. We think that bondage represents sin only. Or we think that bondage represents anything that brings stress. Or we think that bondage is something that keeps us from being able to live haply. We think bondage is oppression.

Bondage is system. To define system: System is any institution, corporation, or organization that seeks it's own perpetuation and goals over and above anything or anyone else. Lets unpack that a little bit.

System is any institution, corporation, or organization... Basically, anything that is man-made is a system. Even our systems of religion are places of bondage, and not places of liberty. Nations can be systems - certainly government itself is a system. Institutions, corporations, and organizations have one common thread: their set up and leadership. These are places that have a small number on the top in charge, and from there people of influence, and then the common person. It is a pyramid. We have set up our businesses and organizations to even model this. From our business and corporate model, many "churches" have also modeled what church should be.

When we have one man, or only a few men at the very top, we find that the system is corruptible. The reason is twofold: man and satan. Man in corruptible. Man is depraved. We are inherently sinful, meaning we are born with the condition of sin, and we tend toward sin instead of away from sin. We become increasingly sinful. Man is not perfect. Only God is perfect. But the other aspect is satanic. There is a demonic influence over systems. The first place that we find such systems in the Bible is the tower of Babel. Ultimately, Babylon resulted from this tower. Babylon is a representation of the kingdom of darkness. Satan inspired such an idea as the tower of Babel. Why? Because it is easier to jerk and manipulate one man at the top than an entire nation or people.

However, the statement doesn't stop there. System seeks it's own perpetuation and goals over and above anything or anyone else. We'll break down that first part. What does it mean to seek your own perpetuation? Think about a small mom and pop store. The hope is that they can continue their business and hand it down to their children. In a sense, there is nothing wrong with this. In another sense, this is a stepping stone to disaster. The system itself has its own hopes and desires. When you come against this machine industry, it will lash out against you. Why? What is it that would cause for such a system to lash out instead of embrace death?

This is actually at the heart of the Exodus story. Why did Pharaoh continue to harden his heart? Why does it then say later that God hardened his heart? The hardening of Pharaoh's heart is not in itself because of Pharaoh, but because of the system itself. Any threat to the existence of that system, which in the case of the Exodus was the enslavement of an entire people, is vehemently opposed. It goes back to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We know best, and therefore anything that challenges our rule is to be squashed. Yet, the tree of life is a death and a cross. It is trust in the Lord, that even if He has hidden something from us (the accusation of the serpent in Genesis 3), it is for our benefit, and not for our detriment.

Systems desire to perpetuate themselves. They will use and abuse people in order to do so. If the establishment is crumbling, the workers, the clients, the customers, the owners, and all others involved are going to get hurt by that system. It somehow seems that the system itself is what is causing the pain and toil.

On the other hand, when we're dealing with systems, we're also dealing with an abuse and misuse of people in order to reach the desired goal. That goal might be influence, it might be income, it might be growth, or it might be survival. Whatever the goal is, that goal is the ultimate, and people are only a means to that end.

I worked at Chic-Fil-A. I don't have anything against the company. But I can use this as an explanation that even Christian owned companies are not beyond this. You have at the top of the corporation a CEO, or a board, and then others that work at corporate Chic-Fil-A under them. Then from there are the owners of the franchises, and under the owners are the managers, and then finally the common staff employee. That common staff employee gets paid what they have agreed to, but in the mind of the person at corporate Chic-Fil-A (which is an office and not a restaurant), that person is only a number. They are a faceless employee. They are a statistic. They are a paycheck, and they represent income and growth. The company Chic-Fil-A is probably one of the best (if not the best) companies to work for with this as their basis. Even though the people are numbers, the people that are at the top know that those numbers represent people. That does not stop the abuse and misuse of those workers, but it does limit it. I'm willing to admit that.

So when we read of Egypt being bondage, or slavery, many times we think that it is the harsh taskmasters and the making of bricks without straw that is the bondage and slavery. We think of the slavery itself, and the lack of mercy. What we don't realize is that the slavery and bondage is only the result of a system. Egypt is system. System is Egypt. The two are synonyms.

When we want to talk about our freedom from sin, or our freedom from Egypt, or how God is going to destroy Egypt, we need to have this understanding. What it means that God will destroy Egypt is that God will destroy the system that enslaves. He will take that pyramid that looks at people as numbers and statistics, and He will abolish that. In fact, when you look at what God has ordained that we be, you find that He has actually taken that pyramid and turned it upside-down.

Instead of the idea that Christ is at the top and under Him are the apostles and prophets, and then under them are some of the giants from the last 2000 years, and then we eventually come down to the pastors, and then the teachers, and then the common laymen, God has set Jesus at the bottom. The idea that we have in our mind is that the anointing, or blessing, comes from the head and flows down the body. Just as when you anointed a man as king or priest, you would anoint their head, and then it flowed down.

However, God has said that He who is to be greatest must be the least. Jesus was not exalted because of His greatness, but because of His humility. The sin and need of all of the people flow down onto the pastors and teachers, who then are able to serve and minster those people. The sin and need of those pastors and teachers flow down onto the apostles and prophets, who are then able to serve and minster to the people. The sin and need of those apostles and prophets then flows down onto Christ Jesus, and He is ultimately the one who took up sin - became sin - so that all of our needs are met through Him.

God has set up an upside-down pyramid, where ministry does not mean teaching or preaching or educating, but instead it means discipling. Discipleship means taking someone into your life and living together with them. They can get more sermons from seeing your character than from hearing your knowledge. The idea of a pastor or teacher is not to somehow "lead" or "teach" the flock in a Greek style. The Greeks would hold lectures. The Hebrews would share life together. Jesus is our ultimate example of what it means to be a teacher or pastor. He took in His disciples. There were the initial 12 that followed Him everywhere, but then there are others that also seem to follow Him (He sends out the 72 at one point). The 12 are closest, and even within the 12 there were 3 being distinguished: Peter, James, and John.

This is how God has established what we're to be about. But any religious system that is based off of Egypt will make statements like, "No church is perfect." Of course it isn't when you take an imperfect system and call that "church." But the Bible says that the Bride is perfect. She is blameless. She is spotless. She is clean. She is beautiful. How long will we judge whether we're doing church correctly on a false system - one that looks like Egypt? I am looking for a perfect church. The perfect church is one that is able to live together in unity, and confess our faults one to another. The perfect church is one that seeks humility above order. The perfect church is one that knows we are all sinners, and we all need to repent. The perfect church takes seriously the command in James where it tells us to "confess our faults one to another." It is actually in that very thing that we find freedom. But if we aren't living together, and we fear that we'll be judged instead of cleansed, then what are we even doing?

Egypt is still around. It is still alive and well. Though God judged it millennia ago, we are still facing the same bondage that the Israelites faced. In fact, we seem to have these statements like, "What alternative is there?" What other option do we have? It takes the mighty works of God almighty in order to deliver us from systems. It takes miracles to get us out, and it takes miracles to even sustain us in the wilderness before we come unto the Land that He has promised. But if you are willing to hear that call, "Get thee out," then fear not. Cry unto God for a deliverer from your oppression. Know this: the oppression is not those circumstances; it is a lifestyle that we have allowed Egyptian culture and society to form us to.

Why are so many of us unhappy? Why are so many of us not content? It is because we are enslaved, and we don't even know it. Our enslavement is to the television, our jobs, a system that tells us we need to have a career, a system that tells us the best thing we can do is get a degree in order to "be somebody," a system that tells us what kind of house to live in, what kind of family we should raise, what area of town we should live in, and everything else in our lives is constituted upon the value system and propaganda of Egypt.

Listen closely: do not strive to "be somebody." You already are somebody. You were made in the image of God, and He is ever crying out, "Let me see your face, and let me hear your voice; for your voice is sweet like honey, and your face is lovely." Waters cannot quench this love; neither floods can drown it. "Whom the Son sets free is FREE INDEED." We are called as a people to be outside of Egypt, not to become the New Egypt. In Israel's history, Solomon reformed Israel into a "new egypt." The only thing left after that was exile and judgment.

The church and the synagogue are identical. They are synonyms. They are both set up as the same system. Come out from her, my people. Remember the first message of our Lord at Nazareth, "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering sight to the blind, and to release they that are oppressed."

Persecution - the Heart of Davidic Worship

            When we desire to understand the heart of David’s worship, there is no better place to turn than to the Psalms. In Psalm 56 and 57 (to only examine two), we find them both starting with persecution. The one is persecution from the Philistines, and the other is persecution from Saul. In this we have symbols of persecution from the world and persecution from the backslidden Church. I find it interesting that even with both of these two very different oppressors, the first few verses in both the Psalms reference David being “trampled.”

            “Be gracious to me, O God, for man has trampled upon me; fighting all day long he oppresses me (Psalm 56:1). He will send from heaven and save me; He reproaches him who tramples upon me (Psalm 57:3).” This is the unfortunate fate of a “David.” David symbolizes the man of faith – which is ironically the one that always gets trampled upon by men of the world, whether religious or otherwise. Though in both Psalms David is being trampled, his cry is to God and God alone. He does not raise his voice against the Philistines or against Saul.

            In Psalm 56, we find that verses four and eleven repeat one another. In verse 11 we read: In God I have put my trust, I shall not be afraid. What can man do to me? In another translation it uses the word “flesh” instead of man. What is the “flesh” and who is the “me” being spoken of? We have already seen from verse one that David is being trampled upon. So obviously flesh is doing something to him. Not to mention, if David is taken, there is a lot of torture that man can do to another man. Yet David insists that man can do nothing to me.

            The “me” must mean something more than the physical body that can indeed be harmed by men.  However, what he is in God, the essential David, cannot be harmed. In this we have the basis for why we shall not fear. This is the basis for worship. Who we are in God cannot be taken from us. We are something very distinct and different from our bodies. Though we are contained within our physical bodies, the reality of who we are is not destroyed with our body. This is why in the midst of persecution we can find solace in God.

            In all of the saints of old, whether Old Testament or New Testament, we read that the glory of God is revealed in both their lives and their deaths. Martyrdom is not merely in death, but a lifestyle. When we can live as though we have already died, then we are truly living. Our lives are not our own. God is somehow in control and is bigger than our lives. Everything we do is to the glory of God. Nothing is for self.

            In this, our death is taken in a way to say, “There is something more important than self-preservation.” In order to die at the hands of persecutors and make that kind of statement through your death does not come at the end of your life. You aren’t going to somehow find the gusto to endure pain. This kind of manifestation is displayed through your life – your death is only the final enactment. Any persecution that is faced, whether to the death or we live through it, will display full well the wisdom by which we truly are governed.

            King Zedekiah was promised his life if he surrendered to Babylon. There was a problem. He feared men more than God. Because he feared what the people of Israel would say, he was brutally tortured and ultimately killed. His death was not valiant. Isaiah, tradition says, was cut in half while hanging upside down. While they hacked him asunder, he was still prophesying. Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego took “death” (fiery furnace) without wavering. They claimed, “Even if God does not deliver us, oh king, we still will not bow down to your stupid antichrist statue!”

            When we view Acts 16, we see the story of Paul and Silas. These two men are beaten and thrown in prison unjustly. At midnight, they start singing songs of praise to God. In the midst of their worship, the prison doors swing wide open. What is it about the worship of Paul and Silas that would cause for such a phenomena? When you can give testimony of God like that to the world in the midst of adversity and trials, then you have given the ultimate witness of God that glorifies God and can be used as a witness to save the nations.

            When our worship comes from a heart that knows God’s character and that He would not allow anything to befall us if it did not glorify Him, we have stepped out of the realm of music as worship and into the realm of Davidic worship. Even in the midst of prison and death, Paul and Silas rejoiced in the God who saved them. Death could not keep them from Him. Why fear? If we die, we go to see the Lord. If we are tortured, then we should count it privilege to be found as worthy vessels to take the same torment that Christ received. Isn’t this why Peter and John rejoiced after being beaten by the Sanhedrin in Acts 5:40-42?

            Probably the greatest travesty of our age is the use of manipulation during worship to rile up the emotions and senses during the music time. True worship should be a spontaneous expression of a reality that has been obtained corporately, by a people who have been long enough and intensely enough together to obtain it. Choruses should be the expression of joy, not its substitute. Music can be a powerful thing, but when music becomes a means to feeling, we have forsaken the holy worship in Spirit and truth.

            There is a wickedness beyond human capacity, which is of the principalities and powers of the air. If we do not recognize (and wrestle) them now, then we will not recognize them during the time of persecution. We will assume that mankind is purely corrupted, and in that we will possibly lose heart. But what do we lose heart in? It is ultimately that we lose faith in God, and we therefore lose our own humanity as well.

            Our lifestyle must be born out of the real belief in a soon coming Tribulation and return of the Lord. With this, our view is properly centered to not fret with the things of this life, and to endure patiently until the end when we shall receive reward. My struggles in daily life are things to rejoice in. I know that the tougher the struggle the greater the work of sanctification it will bring. I rejoice that in pain there is comfort, in struggle there is ability to overcome, in persecution there is endurance, and in torture there is a crown.