Examining the Foundations of Word of Faith Theology

At my core—and in my deepest hopes—I am a Charismatic Christian. I long to walk alongside fellow followers of Jesus who wholeheartedly celebrate that God is still present and active in our lives today, still healing and saving. My desire is for a faith that touches both my mind and my heart. One of the gifts of the Word of Faith movement is its encouragement to trust God boldly, to believe that God cares about every aspect of our lives—health, relationships, and even our daily needs. I have witnessed genuine joy and a beautiful simplicity of belief in many of these communities, and it would take an unhealthy dosage of skepticism to maintain that none of the claimed results in these circles is genuine. I cannot dismiss the real and meaningful experiences that so many have shared. With care and respect, however, I feel compelled to thoughtfully examine some of the movement’s core theological beliefs, as I believe they deserve a closer examination and an honest conversation.

Core Word of Faith Beliefs

The Word of Faith movement is defined by certain core beliefs that are true for the various strands under the umbrella. The selected ones to be discussed here are the movement’s anthropology and soteriology.

Word of Faith Anthropology

The movement believes that a human is tripartite, consisting of a spirit, a soul, and a body. Indeed, people in these circles believe that a human is a spirit being with a soul who lives in a body. This idea emphasizes the human spirit as the most important. Typically, they also go to the extent of saying that the spirit is the real person and that the soul and the body are merely enabling tools for the spirit to function on earth. Here are a few texts used in support of the idea:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 NIVUK
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This text is taken to have spelled out the three components of a human.

Hebrews 4:12 NIVUK
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

While it is true that the Bible often uses “soul” to refer to the whole person, this text implies that the soul and the spirit are distinct components of the human being.

Proverbs 20:27 ESV
The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD, searching all his innermost parts.

This text appears to suggest that God communicates with the spirit aspect of the human. This makes sense since God is himself a spirit, as John says in 4:24.

Word of Faith Soteriology

The anthropology briefly explained above has its most powerful application in the movement’s theory of salvation. When the first humans sinned, humanity fell from grace, and the human spirit died. As a result, humans were unable to please God. The pivotal result of Jesus’ salvific work is that the spirit of a believing human can now be born anew, even “born of God.” This is possible because Jesus imparts a Godlike kind of life, zoe, to the believer. This is unlike the original human spirit, which always was corruptible. This zoe life is immortal because it is a God-kind of life. It is, indeed, eternal life. Below are just a few texts used to support this position:

John 3:16 NRSVUE
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

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

The “life” in these texts are the zoe sort. As some translations of John 10:10 put it, the zoe life is life to the fullest.

The recipient of this new life is not a rehabilitated or improved human. Recall that the human spirit, according to this school of thought, died when Adam sinned. So, when a person receives “eternal life,” she is born anew; she never existed prior. This is what it means to be born again, born anew, or born of God. Among other things, she is a new creation:

2 Corinthians 5:17 NKJV
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

She also is more than what used to inhabit her body:

2 Peter 1:4 NIVUK
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

The believer now partakes in the divine nature, something the mortal human could not do. This again stresses the eternal nature of the new life the believer enjoys. The new life results in a new spirit replacing the old, dead human spirit but is enveloped by the same soul and body as before. However, the soul and body can benefit from the eternal life radiating from this new spirit. In the end, God will replace the mortal body with an immortal one.

There is probably more that can be said, but I hope I have presented a fair version of Word of Faith core beliefs for critical engagement.

Engaging with Word of Faith Anthropology

Scholars and Christians remain divided about what anthropology the Bible teaches. Word of Faith anthropology advocates a tripartite position, but many believers present a bipartite view. In this latter view, “spirit” and “soul” are taken to be different words for the same entity. For our purposes in this entry, we need not settle this issue, for the point of contention lies elsewhere.

I do not think it is quite correct to say, as many in the Word of Faith circles assert, that the spirit is the real human. In other words, I reject the idea that humans are spirits with souls who live in bodies. On the contrary, I think the human is presented in the Bible as a composite whole, and she is not equal to any constituent part. There is probably a sense in which the spirit is more privileged than the other component(s), but I maintain that it is incorrect to claim that the spirit is the real person. Take, for example, the imagery of the creation of the human in Genesis. The adam was not equal to the body of mud formed from the earth or the breath of life proceeding from God. The Bible does not teach that Adam pre-existed in God, and God then later blew him into the suit of mud; the human did not exist as a part of or in God. On the contrary, the adam is equal to the mud suit plus the breath of life. Break up that equation, and there is no Adam. In other words, the human of Genesis 2 is an embodied entity.

This position, of course, requires us to re-examine many passages often taken to teach the primacy of the human spirit. None of the passages quoted above suggests that the human spirit is the real person. Proverbs 20:27, often read in Word of Faith circles as saying the human spirit is the part God communes with, still falls short of saying the spirit is the real person. Presumably, God can commune with a human spirit precisely because it is embodied. In sheol, it is doubtful that God communicates with anyone.

Existence in Sheol

Indeed, we should further explore the matter of existence in sheol: Do humans cease to exist when they die—that is, when the spirit separates from the body? This is a remarkably complex question that we cannot do justice to in this context. However, we will make a few key points. First, the answer is both Yes and No. When people die, they obviously cease to exist in the way others knew them to be. Indeed, death seems to be the precise word we use to describe the cessation of the life of a person as we knew it. But it is also true that the ancients in the Bible thought that a dead person continues to exist in another form:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 ESV
and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

This text, made famous by its frequent use at Services of Songs for the deceased, suggests a reversal of the creation of the human in Genesis: the breath of life returns to God, and the body dissolves into the earth. This may lead one to think the dead continue to exist with God in a spiritual form. But as we shall soon see, this existence consists of almost nothing.

Some texts suggest that the dead go to the realm of the dead, a realm characterized by inactivity:

Ecclesiastes 9:10 ESV
Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.

It seems arguably that the two ideas above from Ecclesiastes are saying the same thing. When people die, they enter into a realm of inactivity. Yes, they continue to exist, but only in a state of deep sleep.

Furthermore, Word of Faith brethren often take a few texts from Paul to support the view that the human spirit is the real person:

Philippians 1:22-23 ESV
[22] If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. [23] I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.

Very clearly, Paul is here talking about his imminent death. He says if “I am to live in the body,” implying that the “I” is distinct from the body. Indeed, the “I” lived in a body. This “I” is usually understood as referring to Paul’s spirit. Paul says the process of death would let him – or rather, the “I” part of him – “be with Christ, for that is far better.” However, whatever Paul means here cannot correspond to what is usually imagined. Paul is not here saying his spirit would be with Christ picking heavenly apples or participating in a heavenly church service. Here is what Paul says elsewhere and in more detail about existence after death:

1 Thessalonians 4:13-14, 16-17 ESV
[13] But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. [14] For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.
[16] For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. [17] Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

Paul says that “the Lord himself will descend from heaven.” First, notice that Jesus does not descend with an army of believers who had already gone to be with him. Second, the passage says “the dead in Christ will rise first.” The “dead in Christ” are, of course, believers who have died. The fact that they are rising first on the last day implies that they had not risen before this time. The means by which God will bring those who have fallen asleep with Christ is by resurrection. In other words, just as Ecclesiastes says, the dead were in a state of inactivity. They were deeply asleep. In short, they were dead. So, whenever Paul finally died and went to be with Christ, he would be among the dead rising first on the last day. In the meantime, he is sleeping in the Lord. There are now no humans walking on the streets of heaven with Jesus.

We should briefly bring up two relevant points from Revelation here. It is essential to emphasize that Revelation is an apocalyptic writing that features a woman clothed with the sun, a red dragon sweeping down stars from heaven, among other notable elements. But even here, we do not read about the righteous dead attending a heavenly service. Indeed, when Revelation references the righteous dead, they are not described as spirits but souls:

Revelation 6:9-11 ESV
[9] When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. [10] They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” [11] Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.

This is a strong data point for bipartite anthropology. If the Word of Faith theory is correct, that the spirits of the departed return to God as the real human entities, this text shows no awareness of that idea. Furthermore, notice that the souls were “told to rest a little longer.” Resting is basically what they had been doing. We should not press the apocalyptic language about the souls’ complaint or their being robed for literalness. What is clear from the whole book is that there is now no human walking about in heaven. We have argued elsewhere that the Twenty-four Elders who continuously worship God are unlikely to be humans.

One more point is worth making. It is rather quite remarkable that on the last day, both the righteous and the unrighteous will be raised and re-embodied before being judged:

Acts 24:14-15 ESV
[14] But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, [15] having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

Revelation 20:12-13 ESV
[12] And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. [13] And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.

Biblical resurrection is a bodily exercise. These texts say that even the unrighteous will be raised to be judged. But if the human spirit is the real person, why would God reconstitute the spirit plus the body before judgment? The answer seems simple. Just as we have on page one of the Bible, humans are a composite whole. Hence, the whole person, righteous or unrighteous, must face judgment “according to what they had done.” Besides, it is worth mentioning that the righteous will not live a disembodied life in the age to come. On the contrary, they will be reclothed in glorified bodies. It is essential to emphasize that these new bodies will be the same bodies the righteous possess in the present age, but recreated and perfected. So, at no time in the entire span of life covering the present and the future ages do humans live a disembodied life, except in Sheol. And existence in Sheol, as Ecclesiastes tells us, is no life at all.

Engaging with Word of Faith Soteriology

When I was a new Christian being instructed in Charismatic Word of Faith circles, I was told that the believer in Jesus has eternal life. This new life is eternal precisely because it is a God-type of life, zoe. I was taught that Jesus gave up this zoe life so that a believer might have it. As I shall now show, I think many of us might have had a different idea of what this term was intended to convey in the Bible.

The Greek word “zoe” does not mean “God’s kind of life.” It just means “life.” Of course, in Christian theology God is the author of life. So, in that sense, one could say God authors “zoe,” but this is a world apart from the usual claim that “zoe” is God’s kind of life. Let us begin with a few elucidating texts:

Luke 12:13-15 ESV
[13] Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” [14] But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” [15] And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

I include the surrounding context to show that the person asking the question was not a Christian. The Holy Spirit had not been given. Yet, the “life” in verse 15 is “zoe.” In this case, the word just means life in the sense of material things humans want or need to live off.

Here is another text:

Luke 16:25 NASB2020
[25] But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.

Again, “life” here is zoe but does not describe a God-kind of life. Below is another text:

1 Corinthians 15:19 NASB2020
[19] If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied.

The word for life is again zoe, yet the life described is not “God’s kind of life.”

Acts 8:33 ESV
In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.”

This is a quotation from Isaiah 53, and the “life” here obviously is biological. Yet, the word used here is “zoe.” Isaiah 53 is a well-known passage that describes the suffering servant, and it is being applied here to Jesus. Should someone be tempted to use this as a proof-text for the idea that Jesus’ life was a zoe kind, here is another text:

Matthew 2:20 ESV
[20] saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.”

Now, this is interesting. The child in this text is Jesus. But “life” here is psuche, soul, not “zoe.” Yet, it is clear that this text refers to the child’s biological life. So, Jesus’ life is not uniquely described as zoe.

There are several other examples we could use, but I think the point is sufficiently made. Zoe, whatever it is, does not uniquely refer to a God-kind of life.

Next, let us discuss the qualifier “eternal,” often appended to “life” in English translations. First, “eternal” means something that continues indefinitely or forever. I suspect this is where people got the impression that “eternal life” is God’s kind of life, since it is a life that continues forever. But, strictly speaking, even this move would be incorrect. The life that God has is eternal in both directions; it continues forever and has no beginning, making it infinite. This is not true of any human. Even if a human life were to continue from now forever, that would still not equal God’s kind of life. There would be a beginning to human eternal life. Humans are contingent beings, whereas God is a necessary being. The idea that humans can have a God-kind of life is simply a category mistake.

In any case, these ideas are not quite what the Bible envisages. The Greek word often rendered “eternal” is “aionio.” It is the word from which we derive the English word “aeon” (also spelled “eon”). It just means “a long period of time,” an age or era. These Greek and English words aim to convey a Hebrew concept of dividing time into two ages: the present age and the age to come. The “age to come” is a messianic era that broke into the present age over 2,000 years ago with the events surrounding Jesus, but it is not yet fully here. When that “age to come” fully arrives, the whole cosmos will be reordered. Sorrow, pain, and death will be no more. Yes, people will live forever, but not because they have a God-kind of life. They will live forever because death will be taken out of the way. Life in that world is what the Bible calls age-to-come life, or “eternal life.”

Moreover, it is worth briefly mentioning that John’s Gospel says what Jesus offered humanity was not zoe, but his body:

John 6:51 NRSVUE
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

So, Jesus gave his body, not his supposed zoe, for the life of the world. It is no accident that believers are corporately called the body, not zoe, of Christ.

Is the Believer Now a New Creation?

One of the central texts used in Word of Faith theology is 2 Corinthians 5:17. Word of Faith believers really push this text. They claim that the believer is a new, never-existing being in Jesus. Yes, the person may outwardly look the same, but their “inner man” or spirit has been entirely made new. The old person who inhabited the body is dead, and a new spirit now lives in the same body. The believer has received zoe, the God-kind of life, and has been recreated.

2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

I recall the first time I encountered this text as a young Christian. I wondered why Paul said “new creation” as opposed to “new creature,” if he was referring to “anyone in Christ.” There are several issues with the Word of Faith interpretation of this text. The chief problem is that their view is severed from the Hebraic understanding of salvation. When Joseph made his people swear that they would exhume his bones whenever they left Egypt (Genesis 50:25, Hebrews 11:22), it was because he knew that it was the same bone and flesh that would be perfected at the eschaton. When Jesus rose, he did not get a new body. He got the same body perfected. At the core of the Judeo-Christian concept of resurrection is the idea of physical continuity.

The other problem is translation. If the widespread translation represented by the ESV above were correct, it would be difficult to discern what else Paul could be communicating. But scholars have always questioned this interpretive translation. In the Greek text, this is what Paul says: “if anyone in Christ, new creation.” Translations like the NKJV italicize the added words. It is like an incomplete sentence that translators do their best to fill in. Here is how another translation puts it:

2 Corinthians 5:17 NRSVUE
[17] So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; look, new things have come into being!

I do not think the popular interpretive rendition is necessarily wrong, but it can be misleading when used for purposes not intended. Word of Faith theology is pressing the text too hard, even if in the right direction.

On the evidence of what Paul says elsewhere in his writings, we can reasonably make a few points. First, the “new creation” here is not restricted to humanity. Second, this new creation is not fully here yet – contrary to the point Word of Faith theology asserts. The new creation, a new Genesis, has begun, for sure. However, it has not yet been fully realized. This is the point Paul fleshes out in more detail elsewhere:

Romans 8:18-23 ESV
[18] For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. [19] For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. [20] For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope [21] that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. [22] For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. [23] And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Notice the standard Hebraic division of time into “present time” and the age “to be revealed to us.” Not everything has been realized yet. For instance, the “adoption as sons” has not happened yet, though it is part of the package. (“Adoption as sons” here is arguably a borrowed Roman legal inheritance term.) Even creation will experience a beautiful harmony and freedom when the process of human adoption as sons is complete. Therefore, the “new creation” of 2 Corinthians 5 has not yet been fully realized. So, no, the believer is not (completely) new yet. There is a verifiable continuity between his life before and after his encounter with Jesus. But the believer will be perfected in the fullness of the age to come, and the giving now of the Holy Spirit guarantees that outcome.

The Holy Spirit is the bearer of “age to come” realities, and the believer may access these realities because the Spirit dwells in her. In other words, a believer can access “new creation” realities now, not because she has a new, never-existed human spirit. On the contrary, she can do so because the Holy Spirit has taken hold of and is recreating the human spirit. Moreover, the standard Word of Faith soteriological idea that a believer receives a new zoe-spirit at salvation makes a mockery of a Hebraic understanding of salvation upon a close examination, as demonstrated below.

Suppose U= P + s + b (Equation 1)

Where U is an unbeliever; P is his unsaved human spirit, which, in Word of Faith theology, is the real person, the actual human; s is his soul, and b is his body.

When U gets saved, s and b are (initially) untouched, though they can later benefit. The only thing that is immediately affected is P, as it gets replaced. Let’s call the replacement Q, and the new reality V.

Hence, supposedly, V = Q + s + b. (Equation 2)

The obvious point is that these equations are not equal to each other. That is, we do not have the same person in both cases—a conclusion that Word of Faith theology affirms.

Here is the problem: if the two persons are different, there is no sense in which U was saved. Actually, U was obliterated, not rescued. The only way U can be saved is if, in fact, Q is essentially equal to P, a point Word of Faith theology denies. Therefore, the Word of Faith concept does not amount to salvation at all. Salvation means a rescue. Salvation requires continuity. If we dissolve the continuity, we also dissolve salvation.

Jesus as the Model New Human

So, what exactly happens to a person when she accepts Jesus? As we have already seen, Word of Faith theology claims that the spirit of the person is replaced with a brand-new, never-existed, zoe-bearing spirit. Here is another text of Scripture often used to make the point:

Ephesians 4:24 NRSVUE
[24] and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Word of Faith adherents point out that there is a new self created according to the likeness of God. They see in this text a support of the view that the believer has a God-like kind of life. But is this a fair reading? Not quite.

First, we should note that Ephesians was written to people who already believed in Jesus:

Ephesians 1:1 NRSVUE
[1] Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesus:

So, according to Word of Faith theology, the recipients of this letter should already have a new, zoe-giving spirit since they are “saints who are…faithful in Christ Jesus.” Yet, Paul writes to encourage them, using a clothing metaphor, to put on the new self. This implies that they were not sporting the new self already. Actually, it is a bit worse:

Ephesians 4:21-24 NRSVUE
[21] For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus, [22] to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, [23] and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, [24] and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

The saints in Ephesus yet had on their “corrupt and deluded” old selves. Paul had to remind and encourage them to upgrade their wardrobe, to go for the available designer clothing line because therein lies “true righteousness and holiness.” In other words, this text does not teach what Word of Faith brethren assert. The “new self” was not something the Ephesian Christians had apprehended.

Indeed, in the twin letter to the Colossians, Paul makes a similar point:

Colossians 3:9-10 NRSVUE
[9] Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have stripped off the old self with its practices [10] and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator.

The Colossians seemed to be doing much better than the Ephesians because they had already stripped off the corrupt and deluded old self and had already donned the new self. But this new self is still “being renewed in knowledge.” Hence, the “new self” the Colossians have discovered cannot be a God-kind of life, since it is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. The “new self” is a copy, an image, of an original, the creator.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul makes explicit the referent of the idea informing his clothing metaphor:

Romans 13:13-14 NRSVUE
[13] let us walk decently as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in illicit sex and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. [14] Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Once again, the saints in Rome, like the ones in Ephesus, yet had their old selves on as they were getting drunk and participating in illicit sex and licentiousness. But rather than asking them to put on their new selves, Paul tells them to put on “the Lord Jesus Christ.” So, the “new self” is a copy of the risen Lord himself. Jesus is the new model of humanity whose image is the standard after which believers are being formed. But this process is not completed yet. It will not be completed until humans are glorified upon Jesus’ return.

Now, the fact that the new creation process is yet ongoing does not mean believers cannot now access new creation realities. They can. We read about the exploits of believers in the New Testament. They are no more saved than believers are today. But it is critical to stress that the reason believers in Jesus can now access New Creation realities is not because they have a brand new, never-existing, zoe-bearing human spirits. On the contrary, they can access the realities of the age to come because they have the Holy Spirit within them now. The Holy Spirit is the zoe-giving agent.

Continue Reading

God and Hagar: Abraham’s Evil Treatment of Hagar

Abraham is a significant figure in Judaism, including the form that has evolved into the mutated form we know today as Christianity. The gospel of Jesus was first preached to Abraham as God sovereignly chose to set his redemption plans in motion through Abraham. Generations of Bible readers have also noted the atypical commitment of Abraham to perform what God required of him in the Aqedah story. This story raises many moral questions, as we discussed elsewhere. These points, along with many others, including Abraham’s mention in the “Hall of Faith” chapter of the book of Hebrews, have led many in the church to downplay his not-quite godly episodes. One of such episodes is how he treated Hagar.

Genesis introduces Hagar this way:

Genesis 16:1-2 ESV
[1] Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. She had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar. [2] And Sarai said to Abram, “Behold now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.

A few points are worth dwelling on. Despite the promises of the Almighty God, Sarah had remained barren and felt it was time to take action. Apparently, she was aware of the Yoruba reproductive theory that Orí ọmọ ní ń pe ọmọ wá’yé, so she reasoned that having a child in her home might be the key to her success. In any case, since Hagar was Sarah’s slave, whatever children she birthed would legally be Sarah’s. So, she made a move by offering Hagar to her husband.

It is important to stress that what Abraham and Sarah did to Hagar was not unusual for their time and context. Hammurabi was a Babylonian king with an eponymous legal system of codes by which he ordered his kingdom. He lived some 300 years before Abraham. Here is what Isaiah says:

Isaiah 13:19 ESV
And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the splendor and pomp of the Chaldeans, will be like Sodom and Gomorrah when God overthrew them.

Isaiah calls Babylon the glory of kingdoms and the splendor of the Chaldeans. But Genesis tells us Abram’s origins:

Genesis 11:31 ESV
Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there.

So, Abram’s father and his family lived in “Ur of the Chaldeans.” It is very likely then that Abraham and Sarah lived in a culture that had been influenced by Hammurabi. Indeed, this is what law 144 of the Hammurabi Code says:

“If a man married a naditum and that naditum gave her husband a slave and has (thereby) produced children, but that man has decided to marry a junior wife, that man will not be permitted; he will not marry a junior wife.”

A naditum was a Babylonian woman of a particular class in that society. From the look of things, she likely would have been a woman of reputable status. The critical detail for our inquiry is that this law, centuries before Abram, already contained the idea of a slave girl being used to birth children for her mistress.

So, we see that Sarai did not invent the reproductive theory of using Hagar to raise children. This was a cultural practice known to both Abram and Sarai. Even Hagar might be aware of it. But just because a practice was customary for a society does not mean it was right for the society. There was a time when slavery was customary in Europe, but history has shown that even at that time, there were minority voices in the same society who thought differently. All one needs to do is mentally ask if Sarai would want to be treated the way Hagar was, if the tables were turned.

We should inquire about how Hagar became Sarah’s slave. The text does not explicitly state this, but we have a strong candidate and an accompanying illuminating narrative. Back in Genesis 12, Abraham traveled with his household to Egypt. Apparently, Abraham was aware of the Egyptians’ reputation for beautiful women. He concluded that they would kill him so their king could have his comely Sarah. Rather than consulting Yahweh for help, Abraham devised a plan: he would lie about her actual status and introduce her as his sister. For reasons explored elsewhere, Sarah went along with the plan. The point is worth pointedly reiterating: Abraham was the kind of man who would risk Sarah’s sexual integrity and life to save his own. And, no, this was not a mere mistake but a premeditated idea (Genesis 12:11 – 13). Indeed, Abraham would repeat the same ruse some years later (Genesis 20:2).

Since Sarah was introduced as unmarried, the king took her as a wife. In what seems like a dowry, we read:

Genesis 12:16 NRSV
And for her sake he dealt well with Abram; and he had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female slaves, female donkeys, and camels.

Hagar is likely one of the female Egyptian slaves that Pharaoh gave to Abraham.

Many scholars believe Hagar would have been most likely under 20. Abraham was about 85 years old at the time he impregnated Hagar. It is crucial to discuss the circumstances of this sexual encounter. The first point worth stressing is that a woman, Sarah, was the source of pain for another woman, Hagar. Hagar’s thoughts or wishes did not matter. Indeed, the only thing about Hagar that mattered was her exploitable fertility. She was a slave and a possession. She also became a tool used to “solve” her mistress’s problems.

In all of this, the man of God had no sanctified wisdom to offer. He did not push back. He did not consult with the Lord, who had promised to give Abraham children. Indeed, it is very likely that Abraham believed this was the way Yahweh meant to give him a posterity. In today’s world, this would qualify as rape. This is even more so if Hagar was the typical age at which the ancients married off their daughters, 15 years of age. The text actually describes her as a girl. In ancient times, men were typically much older than their wives, often twice their age. But Abraham would have been about 6 times as old as Hagar.

Things would get worse. As soon as Hagar realized she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. She probably saw her pregnancy as a sign of the gods’ approval of her and a punishment of Sarah. If that was the case, this would not be senseless, especially given how she has been treated. Alternatively, she could just have been an immature teenager. Sarah could not handle the new development, and she complained bitterly to Abraham. What did Abraham do?

Genesis 16:6 NRSV
But Abram said to Sarai, “Your slave-girl is in your power; do to her as you please.” Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she ran away from her.

He approved of sending a slave girl pregnant with his child away, knowing that unmarried pregnant women had little chance of surviving in that world! This raises so many questions. Why agree to impregnate the girl (without her consent) if he would not care whether she lived or died afterwards? As we explored elsewhere, Abraham’s family was very dysfunctional. He seemed like an abused husband just as much as Sarah seemed like a traumatized wife. This dysfunction would also be passed down to the descendants of this couple.

Where is God in all of this? After Hagar left the house, we read:

Genesis 16:7-9 NRSV
[7] The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur. [8] And he said, “Hagar, slave-girl of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?” She said, “I am running away from my mistress Sarai.” [9] The angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress, and submit to her.”

There are so many points to make from this passage. First, as I have argued elsewhere, this “Angel of the LORD” character is the pre-incarnate Jesus. No, it is not in every instance where an angel of God is described in the Hebrew Bible that we have a pre-incarnate Jesus. However, in Angelomorphic Christology, scholars have identified several Old Testament passages where the angel of the LORD speaks as Yahweh.

Second, the angel’s charge to Hagar to return to Sarah’s house is not meant to communicate divine approval of her maltreatment. No, on the contrary, returning to Sarah’s house – as terrible as that might be – offered a chance for Hagar and her baby to be cared for; it was a chance at survival. The angel knew Hagar was afflicted (verse 11). Indeed, the divinely chosen name for Hagar’s boy, Ishmael, communicates that God had heard Hagar’s unrecorded prayers. Nevertheless, God thought it better for Hagar to return.

Third, it is pretty fascinating that Hagar, the slave-girl, was the only person God appeared to in the midst of all the mess. He did not appear to Abraham or Sarah—at least, not immediately. This divine appearance by itself was sure to have energized Hagar to endure whatever came her way. People handle tribulations better if they know God is on their  side.

Fourth, after the angelic message, we read about Hagar:

Genesis 16:13 NRSV
So she named the LORD who spoke to her, “You are El-roi”; for she said, “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?”

Notice what this text says. It does not say Hagar named the angel representing the LORD. No, it says Hagar named the LORD who spoke to her. That is, the redactors of Genesis have Hagar believing that she had seen, not a mere messenger, but God himself. And since it was a widely held belief that nobody could see God and live, a fascinating biblical theme we have explored elsewhere, Hagar was shocked that she lived.

It is worth noting that Hagar was also the first woman in the Bible to name Yahweh. God allowed the slave-girl, maltreated by the àgbàyà in her life, the rare honor of naming the divine. Hagar discerned the message. She realized the LORD had seen her suffering and had come to empower her in her troubles.

Continue Reading

Celebrating Queen Vashti

Many scholars today believe that the book of Esther was written as a play, not history. There are several reasons why this makes sense, but we will not focus on those here. While the Protestant canon places Esther alongside historical books like Ezra and Nehemiah, the Hebrew Bible Canon places the book alongside Wisdom literature. It is also worth noting that there are several known versions of the Book of Esther, each with notable differences. For instance, preachers have often pointed out that the book of Esther is a book of the Bible that does not mention God at all; God is an invisible hand writing the story. However, in some of the other versions, God is explicitly invoked in the story.

Furthermore, Esther and the Song of Solomon are books that were hotly contested during the process of establishing the Hebrew Bible canon. One apparent reason is that these books are rather sexual, and some of the deciding powers did not think that sex and spirituality walk together. In the case of Esther, there might have been another reason people resisted its canonization: the story is about heroines, not a hero.

That’s right. I think there are two heroines in the book of Esther, though we have often focused on one and maligned the other. The Jewish girl, Esther, certainly deserves the praises that have been accorded her since the book was written. She risked her life by approaching the Persian king unbidded:

Esther 4:11 ESV
[11] “All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that if any man or woman goes to the king inside the inner court without being called, there is but one law—to be put to death, except the one to whom the king holds out the golden scepter so that he may live. But as for me, I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days.”

This was probably an imperial law enacted to protect the king from ambitious individuals in the kingdom who might attempt to assassinate him in his chambers. Nevertheless, Esther prioritizes the possibility of her people’s survival over her own death. Besides, a Persian law was likely not the only kind she broke. Esther likely broke Yahweh’s law by marrying a Persian, contrary to the common practice of endogamy in the Israelite community. Ultimately, she successfully rescued her people. In commemorating her bravery, the Jewish festival of Purim was instituted.

The first heroine in the story is Queen Vashti. Esther would not have been able to save her people had Vashti not made the choice she made. Since the church had typically maligned Vashti, let us zero in on her decision.

The book of Esther opens with a description of the majesty of the Persian empire, spanning from Ethiopia to India. That is roughly equivalent to the combined modern-day United States and India. In his third year of reigning, the king threw two parties. The first was for “The army of Persia and Media and the nobles and governors of the provinces were before him, [4] while he showed the riches of his royal glory and the splendor and pomp of his greatness for many days, 180 days.” (Esther 1:3-4 ESV). Of course, there was much fine wine, the drink of the gods, available. When the 6-month-long party was over, the king decided to throw another party:

Esther 1:5 ESV
And when these days were completed, the king gave for all the people present in Susa the citadel, both great and small, a feast lasting for seven days in the court of the garden of the king’s palace.

On the seventh day, the king had one more thing to show off. He thought it a good idea to have his queen entertain the drunk people present with her beauty. He was grossly mistaken. It turned out that Vashti seemed to have had a much higher value placed on herself and refused to be priced cheaply. She would not be another item in the possession of the king to be shown off to whoever cared. So, though the king summoned her, Vashti refused.

As one might expect from men who see women as tools and possessions, the king was enraged. The story then further reveals just how terribly the palace men viewed their wives. When the king sought counsel from his inner circle of men, they gave the following advice:

Esther 1:16-17, 19 ESV
[16] Then Memucan said in the presence of the king and the officials, “Not only against the king has Queen Vashti done wrong, but also against all the officials and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. [17] For the queen’s behavior will be made known to all women, causing them to look at their husbands with contempt, since they will say, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not come.’
[19] If it please the king, let a royal order go out from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes so that it may not be repealed, that Vashti is never again to come before King Ahasuerus. And let the king give her royal position to another who is better than she.

For these men, the dignity of the woman did not seem to matter. What mattered was that she refused to do the king’s demeaning request. The men also claimed that all the wives in the kingdom would be encouraged by Vashti’s behavior. This suggests that women in that empire were not treated as people whose thoughts and dignity mattered. Finally, the men recommended that Vashti’s royal position be given to someone else. This began a process that eventually led to Hadassah.

Generations of churchgoers have been taught that Vashti deserved the punishment. Two common related reasons often given are that she likely broke a law by refusing the king’s command and that a king’s command is as good as law.  Both of these ideas are problematic.

First, the text does not say Vashti broke any law. On the contrary, in one of many ironies in the story, it was Vashti’s replacement who willingly broke a law by approaching the king unbidden (Esther 4:16). Second, the story introduces editorial notes for clarity in 1:13, “for this was the king’s procedure toward all who were versed in law and judgment”.  If there was a rule Vashti was breaking, we should expect the narrator to clear up the matter in a similar manner. Third, to punish Vashti, as quoted earlier, a new “royal order” which would not be repealed was to be issued “among the laws of the Persians and Medes” (1:19). This clearly implies that there were no extant laws that Vashti broke. That is why a new law had to be enacted.

The second idea also has its problems. It is true that a king’s wishes were as good as law, but this does not mean that such a wish must always be carried out. This is especially the case in unethical situations. Churches celebrate the women in Moses’ life – his mother, Egyptian midwives, and Pharaoh’s daughter – who defied Pharaoh’s command to kill Hebrew boy infants. These are similar situations involving women finding reasons to disobey kings. Also, some ancient sources speculate that king Xerxes’ command might have been unethical. For instance, the Targum, an Aramaic commentary on the Hebrew Bible, stresses how the king instructs Vashti to appear “with her royal crown” (1:11) and concludes that Vashti was expected to appear naked. We may never know her reasons, but the story does not portray her as breaking a law.

Another irony in the story is that, whereas Vashti was despised for not carrying out the king’s wishes, it was the king who carried out the wishes of Vashti’s replacement:

Esther 7:2 ESV
And on the second day, as they were drinking wine after the feast, the king again said to Esther, “What is your wish, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom, it shall be fulfilled.”

Well, the wish was granted when Haman was hanged on the gallows he had designed for Mordecai, another irony in the story.

Vashti stands in a long list of maligned and maltreated women in the Bible. There was nothing wrong about choosing not to be exhibited like an animal in the zoo. Yes, Esther deserves her praises. But make no mistake, had Vashti not been a woman of dignity, Esther and her people might very well have perished.

Continue Reading

On the Gender of God: Is God Male?

Presumably, some people, including irreligious ones, would answer the question in the negative: God is not male. In that case, that form of the question may not be the most helpful. What if we modify the question slightly and ask instead: Are men more like God than women are? I suspect that this formulation might yield more fruitful results. The matter before us subtly influences other beliefs; some are harmful and dangerous.

I first became aware of this matter in an undergraduate Hebrew Bible Writings class. The ethnically Jewish, non-religious professor made a comment that set off the rabbit hole: “The name ‘Yahweh’ in Hebrew is as grammatically masculine as “Richard” is in America.” I had not listened closely enough to realize that grammatical and biological genders are separate. My mind immediately went down a long rabbit hole. It seemed to me that whatever it meant to say God was masculine could not exactly mean how we ordinarily use the term for humans. The reason seemed simple: God is a spirit. To be a spirit is to be unembodied. I had to admit, on the other hand, that God is consistently called a Father and Jesus was a male human for 33 years. I managed to get out of the hole by pushing the issue aside so I could focus on the lecture. Now is the time to carefully unpack this crucial matter.

Language Matters: What Does it Mean to be Male?

Many of us today use the terms “male/man” and “female/woman” synonymously – and this is more or less the practice I’ll uphold in this entry. However, it is beneficial to be aware of and learn from advancements in Psychology and Gender Studies. In the ancient world and many parts of our world today, biology is assumed to determine one’s gender. In the Greco-Roman world, for instance, women were thought to be irrational, unsuitable for ruling, needing male guidance, and emotional. Amy Peeler notes that because women were generally smaller in body, they were also thought to be smaller in mind and spirit (90). In other words, to be female meant manifesting the attributes above. The problem begins when we observe that not all women fit into that box, and some men check some of the boxes. This observation motivated some scholars to separate biology from sociology and sex from gender. Biology determines sex, but social factors determine gender. This move raises an obvious question: what does being male (or female) mean?

Continue Reading

On the Office of the Bishop of Rome: Matthew 16:13-21 is Certainly NOT about the Papacy

Abstract:
This essay critically engages the common Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 as the scriptural foundation for the Papacy. While acknowledging the cultural and political significance of appointing a non-European Pope in today’s world, the piece argues that Jesus’ words to Peter were never intended to establish a singular ecclesiastical office, let alone one headquartered in Rome. Drawing on scriptural intertextuality, Second Temple geography, and early church history, the essay proposes that Jesus’ reference to “this rock” was not about Peter alone but likely alluded to the cosmic battleground of Caesarea Philippi—ancient Bashan. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the “keys” and “binding/loosing” terminology reflect shared apostolic authority and teaching responsibility, not centralized supremacy. By situating Matthew 16 within its theological and geographical context, the piece concludes that the modern office of the Bishop of Rome exceeds the concerns of Jesus and Peter in that passage, while still affirming that God can use the Papacy—especially one led by a competent non-Western Pope—for great good in the present age.

Matthew 16:18-19 ESV
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

One of the key biblical texts used to defend the office of the Bishop of Rome is Matthew 16. I have written fuller exegetical blog entries on this passage elsewhere without referring to the Papacy. I think it is a good time to do so now. Please note that I am tabling this in service of truth and not to malign or offend. I respect several Catholics here and hope they will have much to add to enrich our collective understanding of this matter. In the end, I want to argue that, at best, the office of the Bishop of Rome had to be one of the least concerns of Jesus and Peter in this passage.

Matthew records a unique event the other gospel accounts do not cover with as much theological interest. On one occasion, Jesus took the guys on a 25-mile journey. Going from Galilee to Caesarea Philippi would likely have taken them a whole day. This happened shortly after his cousin, John the Baptizer, was beheaded. Matthew does not tell us what the guys discussed en route. Perhaps they were unusually quiet enough to allow Jesus to mourn. But Jesus soon broke the silence:

Matthew 16:13 ESV
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

He is about to take the guys through the three acts of the mind, as I discussed in a recent Logic course video. The disciples threw out the various words on the streets they knew. Some say John the Baptist – apparently, either this intelligence was old, or some folks’ belief in the resurrection of the dead was off the chart. Others say Jeremiah, Elijah, or some other major Jewish prophets. But merely staying at the simple apprehension level wasn’t enough. So, Jesus goes deeper:

Matthew 16:15 ESV
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

In other words, enough of what others are saying. The disciples stuck closer and saw the good, the human, and maybe the ugly. Jesus wanted to know what they were thinking about his identity. Simon Peter famously said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” – a reply so full of theological significance we can’t unpack now. In response, Jesus says:

Matthew 16:17-19 ESV
[17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In Catholic doctrines, Jesus’s words to Peter, “On this rock I will build my church,” are taken as a divine sanction of the Papacy. Furthermore, the passage strongly suggests that Peter was to receive “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” These are cornerstone theological ideas believed to establish the Papacy, but they are almost certainly misguided for several reasons.

  1. Peter’s importance in Jesus’ ministry cannot be overstated. He was among the first disciples to follow Jesus and would preach the first public Christian sermon in Acts 2. Furthermore, while mercifully restoring Peter following his denial, Jesus tasks Peter with feeding his lamb (John 21:15 – 19). But none of these things amounts to Peter’s primacy. Indeed, the primacy idea is antithetical to Jesus’s religious reformation because he instituted a community of co-equal children of God.
  2. At no time was Peter “the” head of the church. In Jerusalem, a plurality of co-equal elders led the church, including Peter, John, and James (Jesus’s half-brother). Some of the Apostles might indeed be said to be more privileged than others. But even with this considered, Peter never had a primacy. He was always one of the three “inner circle” Apostles, including John and James, not Jesus’s half-brother (Galatians 2:9).
  3. The idea that Jesus uniquely referred to Peter when he said, “On this rock, I will build my church,” has K-legs (rickets). At the time the statement was uttered, no church was yet formed. Before the ascension, the disciples were explicitly told to wait in Jerusalem, not Rome, because the church MUST begin from Jerusalem and then branch out to all the world (Acts 1:8). In other words, if Jesus ever desired the office of a Pope, it would be in Jerusalem because that was where he began the construction project.
  4. For about 20 years after the ascension, the believers in Jesus were primarily ethnic Jews and converts to Judaism. It was effectively a Jewish Club. Then the Holy Spirit decided, as it always was meant to be, to expand the membership to Gentiles. Hence, Cornelius and his household became believers in Acts 10. Interestingly, it was Peter who God used on that day. It was a moment for Peter to expand his theology and shed his racism. But he was a quick learner. As soon as he saw the Spirit descend on the Gentiles just as he did on the Jews in Acts 2, Peter got the point: Yahweh has accepted even the Gentiles. Now, we may not point to this as a proof of the fulfillment of Matthew 16:18 – 19 for two reasons. First, this was not the beginning of the building project, as Matthew 16 would seem to suggest. Second, while Peter was used to save a Gentile household, Philip was earlier used to turn an entire region and people in Samaria to Jesus (Acts 8).
  5. Strangely – for the Catholic doctrine, that is – when the Gentile church began to form, it was not headquartered in Rome either. God was building his church among the Gentiles, a movement Peter played a key role in, but the base of that church was not in Rome but in Antioch (Acts 11:19 – 26).
  6. There is, in fact, no biblical evidence that Peter ever did ministry in or visited Rome, even though some later church documents would make this suggestion. Paul was the Apostle who actively did much ministry work in Rome and even succeeded in converting members of the Imperial household (Philippians 4:22).
  7. As I have done at length in blog entries, the Matthew 16 passage has something else entirely in mind. The passage employs much wordplay. Though “Peter” means rock, the very ground on which Jesus and his disciples stood was also a rock. When Jesus said he would build his church on “this rock,” he ABSOLUTELY did not uniquely refer to Peter. Even a later description of the church-building process does not uniquely refer to Peter:

Ephesians 2:19-20 ESV
[19] So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

Here, Paul says to Gentiles that they are members of God’s household “built on the foundation of the APOSTLES AND PROPHETS,” not Peter. This idea is directly connected to the passage of Matthew 16, but not in the way Catholic doctrines would have us believe.

The “rock” on which Jesus would build his church is the ground on which he stood in the region known as Bashan in the Old Testament (Joshua 13:30). However, Peter would play significant roles in the process, as already mentioned en passant. Bashan was a fundamental idea in Old Testament theology because it was the entry point of the corrupting “sons of God” of Genesis 6. Psalm 68 says God will one day settle the old scores with Bashan:

Psalm 68:1, 14-15, 18 ESV
[1] God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered; and those who hate him shall flee before him!
[14] When the Almighty scatters kings there, let snow fall on Zalmon. [15] O mountain of God, mountain of Bashan; O many-peaked mountain, mountain of Bashan!
[18] You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.

The Psalm begins with an expectation of a divine battle. We find out the battle is with Bashan – a mountain God wants to conquer. The Psalmist describes God’s anticipated victory over Bashan in ways generals of old did:

“You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.”

The attentive student of the Bible would immediately notice that this is the verse Paul alluded to in Ephesians 2:19 – 20 and then quoted in Ephesians 4:

Ephesians 4:7-12 ESV
[7] But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. [8] Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” [9] (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? [10] He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) [11] And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

So, the giving of ministry gifts—apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers—is directly related to God’s victory over Bashan. These gifts are necessary for “building up the body of Christ”—the “body of Christ,” of course, refers to the church. So, in no way does Peter uniquely build the church. On the contrary, all the gifts God has granted play different roles in the construction project.

So, we see that the chief ideas often given in support of the office of the Bishop of Rome are based on a misreading. Nevertheless, I think God can use the office of the Pope for good in our time. This is why I am hoping not merely for a Black or Asian Pope. Some of us want a competent Black or Asian Pope. The politics matter immensely.

Continue Reading

The Gospel and the “Sons of God” of Genesis 6

The Easter Story Retold: How It All Started

According to the Christian calendar, the Holy Week commemorates the most important week ever in the cosmos’ billion years of existence. It is the week of Easter or, to be more inclusive, the week leading to Resurrection Sunday. The idea that one week can identifiably be more significant than all others may offend a thinking mind at first. After all, we have repeatedly heard the argument that our earth is only a speck in the big picture of things. It is an argument asserting that size matters. Ordinarily, I would agree with the argument, but there are exceptions. People do not usually conclude, for instance, that the butt is more important than the brain due to size. Similarly, a speck of uranium may be considered more important than the mountain of trash standing over it.

For generations, churchgoers have been taught to believe that a Messiah became necessary because of Adam and Eve’s sin, but that is an incomplete story that accounts for only one-third of the data. To be sure, the story arc resulting in the Messiah’s coming began with Adam and Eve, but there is more. Let us begin from the beginning.

So, how did we get here? As far as we can tell, an uncreated creative mind wanted to get to work. Evidently, it was not his first attempt at creating. He had already created a myriad of essentially immaterial beings “eons” prior to the “moment” he decided on another project. Undoubtedly, there were innumerably infinite ways the project could have taken shape. But just as he had to narrow down the options with his other creative projects, he must do the same here. God decided to make a class of beings constructed of molecules for unrevealed reasons – a terrifyingly complicated undertaking.

How do you build a being from molecules? Easy — you start with, well, molecules! The problem is that molecules did not exist yet. So, the ultimate project must wait as God began by creating the Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, Sulphur, and other isotopes needed to make the molecules from which his end product would be constructed. But how long would the construction project have to wait? It is not very long – only about 30 million years, which apparently equals about a few days in God’s reference scale. Once the material universe was in place with its arrays of stars coming into and out of existence and all the requisite atoms were available, God could initiate the building of functional molecules.

It soon became clear that God did not want wild humans. Hence, though he had caused vegetation to spring up everywhere on the blue globe, he yet proceeded to carve out a garden for the creature he was about to construct. The human was going to be cultured. After arrangements for human flourishing were in place, God finally built his project after waiting a few million years, a dating that excludes moments “before” the cosmos came to be. The human God created was neither male nor female. It was a genderless composite. In time, it became apparent that the human would not optimally flourish in its composite state. It must be split equally into two complementary forms. Hence, God formed the woman from a rib of the human he had made. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew term for “rib” is a construction term often used to describe a side of a temple. Here, then, is how we finally got the gendered male and female humans. She was in no way inferior to the man. Yes, she was a suitable “help” for the man, but “help” often describes how God is a “help” to humans. If “help” suggests any asymmetry, it is probably in the other direction.

I wish they lived happily ever after, but there would not be a worthwhile story if they did. Some of God’s earlier creations were not down with God’s new hairy creatures. It is not immediately clear if it is the hair or something else, but those older immaterial beings were ticked. Soon enough, they figured out how to mess up God’s project. They would corrupt the young creatures before they have exercised their spiritual muscles unto maturity. Obviously, this implies that the hairy creatures were not incorruptible. If they became corrupted, it was because they could be corrupted. They were not perfect, only good. Very good, actually. Sinister forces succeeded and corrupted the humans.

What was God to do? Another 30 million years is nothing to an eternal being, but starting afresh would communicate lasting victory to the sinister forces. He must find a way to undo the damage. However, we soon learn that God is not in a hurry. Just as he took his time to execute the creation project, he seemed just as relaxed in his redemption plans. It will take a few thousand years to sort things out. In the meantime, however, things became terrible very quickly.

Bashan and Genesis 6’s Sons of God

By the second generation, while there were only four named humans in the story, a man would remorselessly murder his own brother. But that was only the beginning of moral decay. The corruption would soon become supernaturally charged. In Genesis 6, we read the following:

Genesis 6:1-4 ESV
[1] When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, [2] the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. [3] Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” [4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

This is a hotly debated pericope; we shall not attempt to settle it here. It is fair to say that the standard view in our churches today is that the “sons of God” are humans – whether human kings, descendants of Seth, or something similar. I shall only point out to readers that this reading is a more recent (4th century AD) position. A much older Second-Temple Era tradition takes the “sons of God” as supernatural beings/angels, and the evidence for this reading, in my view, is much stronger. Besides, as we shall see, the angelic interpretation has immense explanatory power. The Genesis 6 passage builds on the earlier chapter. Genesis 5 is a genealogy featuring extraordinarily long life spans. Adam, for instance, lived for 930 years, and Methuselah famously lived for 969 years. Scholarly debates continue as to whether these are literary or literal ages. However, our pericope in Genesis 6 suggests that the human life span was cut shorter to 120 years. Exactitude does not seem to be the point because people lived longer than 120 years afterward but significantly less than the ages reported in Genesis 5.

If we suppose the “sons of God” are supernatural beings, then Genesis 6:4 would suggest that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sexual union of angels and women. These Nephilim are often identified as giants who descended from Anak (Numbers 13:33). They are, hence, also called Anakim (or Anakites) and lived in the land Israel was to inherit, Canaan (Joshua 11:21, 22). Though it remains an offensive and troubling issue in popular discourse, one of the literary reasons God would have the Israelites wipe off everyone in Canaan was because they were descendants of the Nephilim. The famous Goliath was also of the Nephilim. In other words, God was somehow using the Israelites to solve an ancient problem of angelic corruption in his project.

Some well-known non-canonical Second-Temple era Jewish literature unequivocally understood the “sons of God” as defiant angelic beings (1 Enoch 6 and Jubilees 5, for example). We may also have a New Testament witness to this tradition of reading Genesis 6. Consider the following:

2 Peter 2:4-6
[4] For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; [5] if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [6] if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

This passage speaks of “angels when they sinned” (verse 4). When was that? It does not explicitly say but moves on to the time of Noah. The careful reader would immediately notice that the story of Noah and the flood is in the same chapter that discusses how the “sons of God” copulated with women. It is, therefore, very plausible that Peter here says God consigned those sinning “sons of God” to hell and that he “did not spare the ancient world” precisely because he wanted to wipe off the Nephilim from the earth, a project that continued even through the ancient Israelites, as earlier mentioned en passant. Besides, the 2 Peter passage also referenced Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient cities known, among other things, for their terrorizing and inappropriate sexual practices. Peter could have cited the sexual practices of these cities as a contrast with the order-defying sexual practice of the “sons of God” of Genesis 6. Indeed, the passage talks about “those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority” (2 Peter 2:10 ESV). Of course, the acts of angels copulating with women are an exercise in “defiling passion,” which also despises the authority of God and his established order of reproduction according to kinds (Genesis 1:11).

In the non-canonical Second-Temple era work called 1 Enoch, the “sons of God” entry point onto the earth is believed to be Mount Hermon (1 Enoch 6:1-6), also called Mount Sirion and Senir (Deuteronomy 3:9). It was the tallest mountain in ancient Israel serving as the northern border of Bashan, east of the Sea of Galilee. In the days of Joshua, after the Israelites had conquered the land, Bashan was allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh:

Joshua 13:30 ESV
Their region extended from Mahanaim, through all Bashan, the whole kingdom of Og king of Bashan, and all the towns of Jair, which are in Bashan, sixty cities,

This Og king of Bashan came at the Israelites while they were coming out of the wilderness to battle with them:

Deuteronomy 3:1-2 ESV
[1] “Then we turned and went up the way to Bashan. And Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. [2] But the Lord said to me, ‘Do not fear him, for I have given him and all his people and his land into your hand. And you shall do to him as you did to Sihon the king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon.’

The implication is that Og and his people are descendants of the Nephilim.

Furthermore, Psalm 68 also has a lot to say about Bashan. Consider the following selected verses:

Psalm 68:1, 15-16, 18, 20 ESV
[1]  God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered; and those who hate him shall flee before him!
[15] O mountain of God, mountain of Bashan; O many-peaked mountain, mountain of Bashan! [16] Why do you look with hatred, O many-peaked mountain, at the mount that God desired for his abode, yes, where the Lord will dwell forever? [18]  You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.
[20] Our God is a God of salvation, and to God, the Lord, belong deliverances from death.

The Psalm unequivocally begins with an expectation that Yahweh will arise to battle with his enemies. These enemies are identified as relating to Bashan. Indeed, the Psalm says Bashan is envious of Zion, the mountain God desires as his forever residence. (Note that the ancients believed that gods lived in mountains, regions of the earth that were removed from ordinary human incursions.) Next, we get the familiar verse that Paul applies to Jesus in his letter to the Ephesians: “You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.” Finally and critically, the Psalm links this divine battle with Bashan to human salvation from death. As pointed out later, this is directly connected with “the gates of Hades” of Matthew 16.

Interestingly, by applying the Psalm to Jesus, Paul affirms that Jesus fulfills the expectations of this Psalm. The Psalm promises a deliverance from death, a central component of the Gospel that Paul preached. Two additional points are worth making here. First, this is yet another example of the subtle ways New Testament authors affirm that Jesus is Yahweh. Undoubtedly, the God that Psalm 68 expects to battle with Bashan is the Yahweh of Israel. Yet, the monotheistic Jew, Paul, has no problems placing Jesus in that spot of Yahweh. Also, Paul’s use of the Psalm implies that the functioning of the ministry gifts Jesus gave the church somehow contributes to deliverance from death, even as they equip saints for ministry work. We shall have more to say shortly.

The Role of Noah

We began the story from the beginning of humanity’s slide into decay. With only four named persons, there was a murder. We also saw supernatural beings’ role in increasing corruption in the land when angelic beings took on flesh and birthed the Nephilim of old. By the middle of Genesis 6, here is the report of that world:

Genesis 6:12-13 ESV
[12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. [13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

So, the corruption and violence only increased, and God concluded that the generation had to be wiped out. But Noah and his family were rescued. It is vital to remember that the people rescued were part of a corrupt generation. The text does not tell us how Noah found divine favor, but we read that Noah obeyed and performed the tasks given to him (Genesis 6:8, 22). And everyone who believed Noah was also rescued. After the flood wiped out life on the earth, we read:

Genesis 9:1-3 ESV
[1] And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. [2] The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. [3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

The careful reader ought to catch the allusions embedded in this passage. Earlier, God said, “Be fruitful and multiply” to the humans in the Garden of Eden. The language of dominion over the animals is also reminiscent of the task given to Adam. Even Genesis 9:20, “Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard,” is a clear allusion to Genesis 2:15, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” There are thus two literary functions performed by the Genesis 9:1-3 verses above. First, the world must be repopulated with Noah and his people just as Adam and Eve had to do, being the first humans (Genesis 9:19). But there is more. The verses above also remind the reader that God had not given up on addressing the problems caused by Adam and Eve. Indeed, the flood became necessary because what Adam initiated had degenerated into worse acts of violence and evil.

However, the flood was no real solution; it only slowed the decay but did not reach the root. Indeed, one of Noah’s sons would soon remind us that the problem remains. After Noah had resettled post-flood, he drank from the wine of the vineyard he had planted. He became drunk and fell asleep naked. Next, we read:

Genesis 9:22-25 ESV
[22] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. [23] Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. [24] When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, [25] he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”

This is a problematic passage for a few reasons. Though the passage’s text merely says Ham saw his daddy’s nakedness, verse 24 says Ham did something to his daddy while he was asleep. Merely seeing someone’s nakedness does not equal “doing” something to them. Besides, it likely was not Ham’s first time seeing his dad naked, especially when he was a little boy. The other problem is that Noah cursed not Ham, the perpetrator, but Ham’s son, Canaan. These observations have generated many interesting conversations concerning the nature of Ham’s offense, including voyeurism, paternal rape, or incestuous sex with Noah’s wife (and Ham’s mother). Now is not the time to flesh out the arguments. Regardless of how we read the story, it is a reminder that this son of Noah was no different from the others killed in the flood. In other words, again, the flood did not solve the problem of evil inclinations in human hearts. It merely scaled it down.

Shortly afterward, we are introduced to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) following a Table of Nations (Genesis 10). The world was being repopulated again through the three sons of Noah after everyone else died in the flood. As if to remind us that the flood did not solve a problem, the new generation of humans yet decided against God’s directive by choosing to congregate in a chosen spot rather than spread far and wide:

Genesis 11:4 ESV
Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”

So, they explicitly intended not to be “dispersed over the face of the whole earth” – the very result God wanted all along from the days of Adam. With a measure of irony, though they were going to build a tall tower reaching to the sphere of the gods, the Most High God came down instead to inspect the defiant project (Genesis 11:5). Twice, in consecutive verses, the passage says God ensured that the people were eventually dispersed over the face of earth as God always wanted (11:8,9). God achieved this desire by confusing the people’s language.

Abraham is a Major Character

Ten generations and 465 literary years later, God made a pivotal move toward solving the problems we have been discussing. Perhaps God waited until the genetic contributions of the “sons of God” and Nephilim in the gene pool were washed out. Whatever his reasons, God decided to call a 75-year-old childless Abram to derive an ultimate son from his lineage. Nine generations after Noah, God made a move:

Genesis 11:31 ESV
Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there.

So, Abram’s father intended to journey with some family members to a land Yahweh was very interested in, Canaan. Indeed, when God eventually called Abram, he told him to complete the journey his father had started. Understandably, Abram took everyone who began the journey with Terah with him to Canaan (Genesis 12:5). No reason is given for why God wanted Abram to complete the journey, but we are told the following:

Genesis 12:2-3 ESV
[2] And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3] I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

This is a familiar passage that deserves careful parsing. Narratively, Genesis 10 describes the many nations that emerged from the three sons of Noah. Strangely, God calls Abram and promises to make a hitherto non-existing great nation out of him, even though several great nations already exist on earth. In fact, Abraham did not even have a child because his wife was barren. It is as though God abandoned the other nations to start afresh with Abram. He, however, is not permanently abandoning the other nations because “all the families of the earth” somehow will be blessed by the nation God would make of Abram. From that moment forward, God specifically guarded the blessing within Abram’s lineage.

This was a serious project because God clarified that he needed no help. Abram was 75 when God called him and told him he would become a great nation, but he remained childless 10 years later. (This is a recurrent theme we have seen in Genesis so far – God never seems to be in a hurry.) So Abram (and Sarai) understandably thought they could help God initiate the “great nation” project through a second wife. But God was firm and clear:

Genesis 17:19-21 ESV
[19] God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. [20] As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. [21] But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

Ishmael was not it – hence, the later Islamic claim of a prophet from Ishmael’s lineage has no basis whatsoever in Scripture. Ishmael will also become a great nation like the ones in Genesis 10. But he is not to become the “great nation” that will be a blessing to the world.

Eventually, 25 years after the initial promise, the promised son Isaac was born. And when he became a father, he gave birth to twins, creating a little problem. The “great nation” lineage can not come from both children. God must make his election clear again. It would be Jacob, despite his devious ways. Jacob would become a father of 12 sons, but the promise must be carried forward through Judah, one of Jacob’s worst and most unintegral sons. Matthew states that God closely supervised the blessing for 42 literary generations until Jesus was born.

The Gospel Effectuated

This, then, is the long-lived redemption plan of God. Jesus was the long-awaited son and deliverer. This Messiah will decisively address all the problems we have discussed. Paul clearly understands this when he writes:

Galatians 3:8 ESV
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

The good news, or gospel, of God finally redeeming the cosmos did not start with Jesus. On the contrary, Jesus came to initiate the end of it. The Gospel that Jesus effectuated began with Abraham. Abraham was the genealogical head of a project that produced the promised Rescuer of the cosmos. But the problems predated even Abraham. The Jesus Event finally effectively dealt with the problems we have chronicled: the glory lost in Eden, language confusion at Babel, and the corruption of the angelic sons of God.

Jesus as Adam 2.0+

Romans 5:12-21 is an extensive contrast of Adam and Jesus, which shows that Jesus’s appearance had something to do with the ancient problem in the garden:

Romans 5:12-15 ESV
[12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

The argument is straightforward: Jesus reverses the error and the attending consequences of Adam’s trespass in the Garden. Whereas death, through sin, spread to all men as a result of Adam’s acts, Jesus’s obedience provides life to all who appropriate the offer:

Romans 5:18-19 ESV
[18] Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [19] For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Hence, Jesus solves the Adam Problem. Christ is the second and last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47).

Tongues in Acts: Babel Reversed

Luke, the author of Acts, seems intentional about connecting the ministry of Jesus – specifically the ministry of the Holy Spirit – to the Babel event of Genesis 11, thereby implying that Jesus addresses another ancient problem. Below is how the Babel story begins:

Genesis 11:1-4 ESV
[1] Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. [2] And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. [3] And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. [4] Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”

The chapter begins by saying the whole world had one language. Since the previous chapter gives a table of nations, each with its own language (Genesis 10:5), we need not conclude that this verse asserts the existence of a single language from which all languages are derived – a claim against current scientific evidence. On the contrary, the verse can be taken to say the world had a lingua franca, a common language for business. The relevant point here is the flow of this narrative: the people had a common language and understanding to permanently station at a chosen spot rather than spread all over the earth as God wanted. To achieve his goal, God determined that confusing their language so they no longer understand one another was an effective way to get the people to abandon the project (Genesis 11:7, 9).

In Acts 2, the believers were gathered in one spot as Jesus instructed them. Suddenly, the Spirit descended and filled eachperson so that they “began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). Meanwhile, something else was happening outside:

Acts 2:5-12 NIVUK
[5] Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. [6] When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. [7] Utterly amazed, they asked: ‘Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? [8] Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? [9] Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, [10] Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome [11] (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs – we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!’ [12] Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, ‘What does this mean?’

Religious Jews from “every nation under heaven” heard the Galileans speak in these traveling Jews’ languages. Both the “every nation under heaven” phrase and the list of nations provided allude to Genesis 10, the table of nations, and Genesis 11. And, of course, the central action is a reversal. Unlike in Genesis 11, God has supernaturally enabled all the people “from every nation under heaven” to once get his message through “common” languages.

Acts expands the pattern. Every time a distinct category of people received the gospel message, they spoke in tongues. This happens again in Acts 10 at Cornelius’ house – the first Gentile group to be accepted by God without first converting to Judaism. In Ephesus, a region far removed from the regions of the Spirit’s operations thus far in Acts, some individuals also received the Spirit and spoke in tongues. This suggests that the divine program is not geographically restricted.

The Death of Jesus and the Powers

We have been trained over the years to associate Jesus’s death with the atonement – and, for sure, it has much to do with that. But the death of Jesus addresses other critical issues. Consider the following:

Colossians 2:13-15 ESV
[13] And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
[14] having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. [15] And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

This common passage deserves careful parsing. The central issue the letter to the Colossians addresses is the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ for salvation. The Colossian church was being harassed by some Jewish teachers teaching that the Gentile church had to do more to become complete children of God. The “more” required seemed to be about Jewish mysticism and Torah-observing. Paul would have none of that as he revealed the clearest and boldest claims about Jesus (Colossians 1:15-21; 2:9-11). In Colossians 2:8, Paul writes:

Colossians 2:8 ESV
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

In this difficult verse, Paul contrasts Christ with some “elemental spirits of the world.” According the the Faithlife Study Bible, there are three possibilities for the “elemental spirits”:

The Greek phrase used here could refer to several concepts: the basic religious teachings of Jews and Gentiles; the material parts of the universe (such as water, earth, and fire); or spiritual powers (such as evil spirits or demonic entities). In this context, the first and third options are most likely. Paul makes clear that these teachings or forces are negative influences.

In other words, Paul says the mystical Jewish doctrines are being influenced by demonic forces in opposition to Christ. This is the context for understanding 2:13 – 15. Verse 15 says Jesus disarmed the “powers and authorities” and “made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.” In other words, Jesus’s death on the cross, while initiating the atonement process, was a direct victorious battle over the powers and authorities, the elemental spirits of the world who influenced the lives of the Gentiles (See Colossians 2:20). How is that so?

A Return to Bashan

As argued at length in another entry, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16 is directly connected to this idea:

Matthew 16:18-19 ESV
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The Gospels record Jesus once making a 25-mile-and-15-hour trip from Galilee to Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus uttered the words above (See Matthew 16:13). But “Caesarea Philippi” was a new name for an ancient rocky region we have already encountered, Bashan. (See our “Gates of Hell” article for how Bashan became Caesarea Philippi.) Besides, at the time of this trip in the first century, this region had a temple devoted to Pan, the god of the underworld. It also had a grotto locals described as the “gates of Hades.” Matthew employs much wordplay in verse 18. “Peter” means “rock,” and Jesus uttered the words while he stood on a rocky surface. In other words, Jesus here declared that he would build his church right atop the gates of Hades, thereby employing another double entendre. He referred to the spiritual reality of Hades while affirming that Peter would play a critical role in the project.

Furthermore, this battle with Hades will somehow result in Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter (and the rest of the disciples). The Apostles had a gatekeeping role in the kingdom. It is, hence, not an accident that when the church’s construction properly began with the giving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, Peter gave the first public sermon. Notice how Matthew immediately connects the “gates of Hell” pericope with the death of Jesus:

Matthew 16:21 ESV
From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

Matthew here tells us that everything Jesus said hinged on his death.

As earlier shown, Paul also connects Jesus’s death and Bashan. When Jesus took the disciples to Caesarea Philippi, Paul was not yet a believer. But after Jesus appeared to him, Paul validates the “gates of Hades” story through Psalm 68. Paul repurposes Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8 – 14. Paul’s use of Psalm 68 implies that giving ministry gifts – Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Evangelists, and Teachers – to the church is a continuation of the church-building process Jesus said he would perform atop Bashan. Paul specifically says these gifts are “for building up the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12). The “body of Christ” is, of course, the church. In other words, Jesus’s one-time mission to Caesarea Philippi continues to bear fruit through ministry gifts. God continues to settle an old score, as Psalm 68 prophecies. Jesus is the Yahweh who settles the score.

John the Revelator also alludes to this reality. The resurrected Jesus introduces himself to John in this way:

Revelation 1:17-18 ESV
[17]  When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, [18] and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

When and where did Jesus get “the keys of Death and Hades”? Obviously, when he died and went to the Underworld. The imagery here is of a complete routing of his enemies. He beat them so badly that he took the keys from them. They no longer can keep people in, but Jesus can keep people out of the reach of Death and Hades. As John records, Jesus’s encounter with Hades was a victory useful for encouraging believers:

Revelation 3:21 ESV
The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.

But, of course, believers are not expected to do battle in life by themselves or in their own strength. Indeed, there is another related reason Jesus died and rose:

Hebrews 7:24-25 NIVUK
[24] but because Jesus lives for ever, he has a permanent priesthood. [25] Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Right now, Jesus is praying for his own. His love for humanity is deep. When it is all said and done, God will dwell with humans in a new Eden, just he wanted always wanted:

Revelation 21:3-7 ESV
[3] And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. [4] He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” [5] And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” [6] And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. [7] The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

And this, all of this, is the gospel. This the good news that turned the ancient world upside down and brought a great empire to its knee.

Work Cited

Barry, John D., Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R. Grigoni, and David Bomar. 2012, 2016. Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Continue Reading

Yahweh and the Other Gods: Understanding Biblical Idolatry

Background

In ancient times, people did not worship idols as if they were, per se, deities. Agbẹ́gilére, the skilled sculptor who creates numerous copies of a deity’s idol in his shop, understands that these idols are not the real divine beings; if he believed they were, there would absurdly be countless Èṣù and Baal as gods. Moreover, on a successful business day, his shop would otherwise be empty of gods—something no one desired! Everyone recognized that an idol was a vital point of contact, a mediator, to connect with a specific god. Noah Marsh reminds us that “an idol formed the primary locus or medium for the deity to manifest himself or herself in the world.” Each “idol worshipper” sought to reach her particular deity through the idols and her supplications. Strictly speaking, nobody thought a god was destroyed because his idols were burned. And, of course, a devotee could always get new replacement idols. This is not to deny that devotees sometimes think of their idols as gods, especially after repeated associations. However, idols can be viewed as gods precisely because of their connection with immaterial, external deities. Marsh further notes, “In the ancient Near East, deities needed idols to represent their presence on earth because they lived in the heavenly courts”. Readers may recall that the heavens are the realm of divine beings.

Continue Reading

On 1 Peter 3:1-6: Navigating Ancient Norms with Christ-Centered Wisdom

Background

We previously discussed the Household Code passages found in Colossians and Ephesians. These passages outline how Greco-Roman Christian households were expected to behave in a manner that honors Christ. We argued that these texts do not prescribe a uniform way for all Christian homes throughout history to operate. If they did, it might imply that every Christian household must own slaves. Instead, these passages illustrate Paul’s efforts to engage with a Gentile issue that even Jesus did not confront in his Jewish context.

The Greco-Roman family consisted of a husband and father who held legally granted absolute power over everyone who lived under his roof – a wife, children, and slaves. How he handled his home was tied to his public reputation and dignity. Women typically were married off by age 15, generally to much older men. Usually, love had very little to do with the marriage. Indeed, the Greco-Roman man was not required to love his wife. Paul found himself in this cultural context, and the options were few. He could have demonized the practice, as the European missionaries to sub-Sahara Africa did, and required the Christians to do marriages the “Christian way,” whatever that might have meant. But that move would be somewhat naive, impractical, and even foolish. First, cultural norms do not change overnight; expecting otherwise is embracing inevitable failure. Second, Christians were a minority, accounting for less than 10 % of the Roman empire at the time, and were despised for their culture-inverting beliefs and claims. An Emperor would later actively persecute them. So, Paul seemed to have taken a “slowly but surely” path to winning the Greco-Roman family structure for Jesus. He sowed the seeds and trusted God to enable germination.

Continue Reading

Singlehood, Polyandry, and Practical Applications (Polygamy Series Part 2, Finale)

African Pentecostals (and their Western Evangelical counterparts) have been taught to look to the pre-Fall portions of Genesis and post-glorification texts of Revelation whenever they want to establish what is ideal. In fairness, the principle works sometimes. For instance, one may legitimately say that the original human diet was plant-based. God says in Genesis 1:29, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.” Although many Christians dislike this biblical dietary idea, it was really after the Fall that humans ate animals, according to Genesis. Also, it is improbable that glorified humans in the new Eden (Revelations 22) will eat animals for food. 

However, the principle does not work with the idea of an ideal marital status. As already argued, not only does Genesis not teach monogamy as the godly form of marriage, there also will be no human marriages post-glorification (Matthew 22:30). Indeed, the only marital language in the New Testament describing Christ’s union with the church is arguably metaphorically polygamous (Ephesians 5:24-27, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Revelations 19:7-9, 21:2), since the church comprises millions of people.

Continue Reading

European Missionaries in Africa and Polygamy: Polygamy in the New Testament (Series Part 1)

“Our thinking has been so influenced by western theologians that we still continue to beat the old missionary drums which summon us to see that our cultural heritage is incompatible with Christianity.” – Rev. David Gitari, Kenyan Anglican Archbishop

A man cannot give what he does not have. We could add to this by borrowing from a Yoruba saying that he who has not been to another’s farm may erroneously assume that his father’s farm is the grandest. These maxims are fair descriptions of the European missionaries who attempted to tackle polygamy on the continent. Coming from a culture where men had multiple unmarried mistresses, the European missionaries were ill-prepared to deal with Africa’s ubiquitous form of marriage: polygyny. Polygyny is a type of polygamy in which a man has more than one wife, and this was a pretty common form of marriage in Africa before and after European encounters. Unsurprisingly, white missionaries assumed the worst about the polygyny they saw in Africa.

The value of this conversation is not merely historical; it holds significant relevance today. Imagine a scenario where Jesus miraculously saves a Muslim man – as he is actively doing throughout the Muslim world today. However, this man has four wives, each with at least three children. When he and his family approach our churches seeking membership, we face a crucial decision. We can either follow the path European missionaries took in the past or embrace better, more effective alternatives. The choice is clear: we must seek Christ-honoring solutions that respect faith and family dynamics.

European Missionaries in Africa

As Douglas Falen writes, European missionaries “struggled with establishing the notions of romantic love and individualism in the face of what they perceived as the unromantic, duty-oriented style of African marriage” (52). Perhaps from a noble heart, they also particularly deemed polygyny as devaluing African women. Indeed, they judged that African men often used their women as pawns in polygynous marriages, as women “were usually the involuntary victims of the custom” (Gitari 3). Notermans echoes a similar thought when she writes that these missionaries to Africa not only “criticised polygyny as an uncivilised, unchristian, and immoral custom as it violated the universal rule of monogamy,” but they also “felt especially sorry for women because they considered them their husbands’ slaves and the powerless victims of an African tradition” (341). Of course, every African has seen a polygynous marriage gone wrong, much like every European has seen a monogamous marriage gone awful. Still, the European characterization of African women as needing salvation from polygynous marriages is not accurate. As we shall see, African women are often willing participants in polygynous arrangements.

Continue Reading